Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

Community portal
Welcome
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Archives
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion
Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

InstructionsEdit

Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Pages needing admin intervention:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots
Promotion

Tools:

Discussions


User:Babe kebabEdit

User:Sitush has left a note on me Wikipedia talk page asserting that User:Babe kebab is a "blatant Risto sock". This seems fairly plausible based on Babe kebab's brief edit history to this point. Any thoughts on this? BD2412 T 18:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The question is WHY Sitush & the gang wants to vandalize the project. I've made 120,000 useful edits - and nobody will revert 'em, because other people would have to add those again. I've done good work here, haven't I? Politics should stay off this wiki! A true detective wants to know the motives. Here some clues: "censorship", "India", investigation for "severe conducting problems" at Meta.--Babe kebab (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you're going to be blocked globally (again). You know better than to sock, so why don't you go back to your original account and appeal to be unblocked, rather than going through these machinations? BD2412 T 19:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
It's just waste of time. The stewards haven't answered in 15 months, so it's better to create new accounts to make the necessary edits - it doesn't matter who makes 'em. Besides it's fun to receive friendly welcoming messages. —This unsigned comment is by 80.223.94.56 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 8 December 2020 .
"Waste of time" That's plain pathetic on your end. It only goes you're an entitled twat who isn't willing to undergo the legwork and as WP tenets show, rebuilding reputation on one account is better than creating so many socks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with Eaglestorm. What's the point of contributing to Wikimedia at all if that's your opinion of it? BD2412 T 07:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I am with User:Babe kebab on this. IMIO the sockpuppet obsession has taken on a life of it own at enwiki. There are many good contributors on many wmf-projects who are accused of sockpuppeting when all they are doing is trying to continue contributing productively. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Why to contribute? To make articles better of course. "Reputation" means nothing. - It's OK if the LOCAL admins want to revert, but some global ones want just to show their power. In that case "no human has the right to obey" (Arendt). - The community should be worried about this: I was forbidden to link Indian related articles at en-wikipedia, and after I called it censorship I got hellhounds on my track.--80.223.94.56 14:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikimedia projects have value because of their rules and community adherence to them, not despite these things. If you were "forbidden" to do something, there is assuredly a good reason for that, and you should abide by that until a contrary determination is made, and achieve change through discussion, not by pretending to be someone else until you get caught pretending. BD2412 T 17:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, maybe you are the right person to discuss with those Hindu and Muslim extremists who have hated each other more than one thousand years.--80.223.94.56 01:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412: you said: achieve change through discussion, but one cannot achieve change if one gets blocked for expressing one's views, or when one is under the impression that one will get blocked if they express their views. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. No one gets blocked merely for expressing their views. Editors get blocked for a wide range of behavioral issues - bullying, attacking, insulting, etc. - and calling those behaviors "expressing their views". BD2412 T 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412 you said: No one gets blocked merely for expressing their views. Is this your personal opinion, the wikiquote community consensus, or something else? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikiquote:Blocking policy provides limitations to the circumstances for which an editor can be blocked. Merely expressing views isn't one of them. BD2412 T 07:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What if an administrator is a bully (in theory of course)? - Anyways, what the readers want isn't very important here, so it seems to be.--80.223.94.56 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There are processes to deal with that as well. Our processes are key to our project being of use to readers. BD2412 T 02:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Great principle! - but the reality is something else. Like told before, I used the official path to stewards, and haven't got reply in 15 months. Why?--80.223.94.56 01:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
My experience tells that admins can do whatever they want. Look at the editing history of the Dutch wikiquote: hardly anything but blocks! And this has lasted for years.--80.223.94.56 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
And there are lots of "preventive infinite blocks" - for me too - before one hasn't even edited. Is this what we deserve?--80.223.94.56 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Silence is golden?--80.223.94.56 01:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if he has been blocked on wikipedia (for it appears unclear reasons), why has he been blocked on WQ? This is an user who has made over 100,000 of very helpful edits and contributions to WQ. -- ~ #SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians like Sitush are saying this user was blocked on wikipedia for bullying, hounding and personal attacks and for defamations and WP:BLP violations on WP:BLP pages. What were these personal attacks? @Ottawahitech:, you have more experience seeing his edits, can you share with us some of the examples of his bullying others and of his personal attacks by this user? Did you observe this user making personal attacks or bullying other users? -- ~ #SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's something to read: [1]--80.223.94.56 13:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) - YaganZ is probably the only neutral person who really has researched the case.--80.223.94.56 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information @80.223.94.56
I am new to the subject of global blocks (or is it locks?), so please bear with me. The link that you sent us to is on a talkpage of user:Wim b on the Meta-wiki. I assume Wim globally blocked User:Risto hot sir? I don't know what process is in place for globally locking wmf contributors, but I see that Wim is not an Administrator, but is a Steward. So I guess Stewards are the ones that decide if a user should be blocked on all wmf-sites?
If so, I believe Stewards are incredibly powerful users and would like to find out whether they are voted in by the community or simply appointed (by who?) Ottawahitech (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Stewards are incredibly powerful users but usually do what administrators suggest - when you look at the time the decision is made: no investigations. And it's very difficult to have contact with them, as I've showed.--80.223.94.56 01:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
How are users notified a discussion is taking place to globally block them? In other words which wmf-site is the notice posted to? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I found this post on Risto's usertalkpage, I think it demonstarates his intentions with regards to WQ? Thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have posted a notice on Wim b's talkpage letting him know about this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Wim bEdit

I've locked Risto hot sir per request for crosswiki abuse. Imho a user blocked in 5 projects is clearly problematic, then evading the global lock through socks is also a way to make fun of the rules that the global community has set itself. I am sorry when I have to block a user who until the day before was an excellent user, but in this case I would not even know how to justify an unblock, but I'll write an email to the other stewards to inform them of this discussion and let's see what comes out. --Wim b 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sent on Saturday, wait if anyone is interested in attending. --Wim b 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping us updated @Wim b: I, for one, appreciate your continued attention to this issue. I don't know how COVID is affecting wiki activity this year, but I believe that in previous years traffic usually dries up during the last two weeks of December, but then picks up with renewed vigour come January. Please keep us posted on any developments.
And for the stats nuts around here, it appears there are now twice as many eyes on this notice board than on our main village pump (ask me how I know this if you are interested) Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
27 698 visitors per day on the main page last year, 7 744 in the last 90 days.--80.223.94.56 22:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What really wonders many is WHY he was blocked? which policies did he violate? why was he blocked before going through dispute resolution? Wikiquote users would like to know which actual wikipedia policies he violated with which edit(s), and if the user went through dispute resolution before being blocked? I assume that this information is readily available and was consulted before blocking and can be shown here. -- ~ #SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is not clear why User:Risto hot sir was originally blocked on enwiki, and it is also not clear why this user(s) is now globally locked. Do globally locked users have to be blocked on all wmf-wikis? If so, why are we not involved in steward elections? The Stewards appear to be making decisions about global locks without a community discussion, apparently. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Ottawahitech new stewards are elected, and existing stewards require reconfirmation, every year since 2005. (Give or take a few months.) It can be found at M:Stewards/Elections. It generally runs Feb 8 through Feb 28. Alsee (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

English Wikiquote blocking policy regarding socksEdit

I looked at the WQ blocking policy link provided by user:BD2412 above to try and figure out if User:Babe kebab should be blocked on this wmf-site. Here is the pertinent section of the blocking policy regarding socks (I think?):

Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion. Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikiquote policy should be blocked permanently. However, blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits. Reincarnations of blocked disruptive users will be reblocked if they continue being disruptive, or if they edit in a way which suggests they are likely to continue being disruptive—such as "YOU CANT BLOCK ME!!" or "JOIN ME IN MY FIGHT TO DESTROY WIKIQUOTE!!" Blocks under this provision are almost always controversial.

discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is a sock?Edit

In order to have a productive discussionn we need IMIO to define what a sock is.

According to 2019:Research/Sockpuppet detection in the English Wikipedia:

Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one account on any social platform

Do you agree with this definition? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The whole point of having an account is to connect responsibility for edits with the specific editor. Where an individual edits from multiple accounts without disclosing the connection between them, this creates the potential for creating a false impression of the determinations of the community with respect to the conduct of the project. BD2412 T 03:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just found out that a new User I have communicated with is globally locked. I cannot find any discussion of this locking. All I see is the date of locking (2 December 2020), the USERID of the locking Steward, and the wmf-sites this User participated in. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk)

  • @Ottawahitech: From what I have seen, and experienced first-hand years ago, stewards globally lock accounts with little or no critical thinking, simply following requests (sometimes raised by overzealous admins or other users with personal vendettas). Global locks are very difficult to appeal, at least without the help of other users. The users that are globally locked are not so much as notified, thus they cannot defend themselves prior to the global lock. Needless to say, this is a great injustice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @DanielTom: Thanks for providing this interesting commentary, and for pinging me.

This is what users who actually looked into the block said :

I know Risto hot sir as a comprehensive contributor to (Latin Wikiquote). Especially his work on I consider as remarkable and very useful for the benefits of all Latin language Wikimedia projects. Therefore I can't understand, why his account is treated like those of evil spamming and vandalizing intruders, that cause damage to the Foundation's projects. After reading of Risto's permanent global lock, I did some research to understand what had happened, but I didn't find any behaviour that would have to be blamed on him and justified such a harsh treatment. Could you please point me to some facts, specifically, that show the "blatant crosswiki abuse"? Thank you.
Over the years I have crossed paths with Risto many times on the English and Italian Wikiquote and as far as I know it does not seem to me that he has done anything destructive. Where he makes inaccuracies, however, he willingly accepts corrections and cancellations and knows how to improve. Given that he has intervened on so many projects it is natural that he has had problems in someone, his problem is being too active, so to speak, but the global blockade seems to me an excessive measure.
From the viewpoint of Estonian Wikiquotes and Wikipedia, Risto hasn't done anything to deserve the block, hence I see no reason to block an active user from one project just because somebody on a completely different project hates them. And some people certainly have it in for them, because while there are articles about him in Finnish and Estonian Wikipedia, in both of which the local community has discussed their relevance and decided to let it be, some emissaries have been traipsing through, seeking for revenge, and demanding that the natives would delete the articles. That's certainly an interesting attitude.

This user has edited almost all wikis. There are hundreds or thousands of them. On some of these small wikis it is very easy to get blocked for some trivial thing. Once Risto got blocked on one small wiki, one can assume here, the next overzealous admin or other user with personal vendettas only had to say this user is already blocked at this small wiki and therefore he should be blocked on this wiki for some trivial thing too, and then he got another block on yet another wiki. And after 3 or 4 of such blocks he got locked.

As David Auerbach wrote in a well known article about wikis, the problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them, and Risto editing in hundreds of wikis increased the risk of this happening to him. This is what could happen to an user like Risto who edits hundreds of wikis. He only needs to have such a problem in one percent of the wikis he edits, to set in motion a chain reaction. -- ~ #SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This doesn't really require a master's thesis. A sock is a user who is evading a block by using a different account, rather than going through the normal unblocking procedure. GMGtalk 23:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo, how do you know that all socks never tried to get unblocked? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"The normal unblocking procedure" has lasted 16 months. "Hierarchy über alles?"--80.223.94.56 23:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@80.223.94.56: Are you saying that the average time for a blocked user to be unblocked is 16 months? If so, is that specuation? An average? A median? What is your source? thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: 80.223.94.56 has been blocked by a local WQ admin. It was my understanding based on a previous post by another local admin that

    No one gets blocked merely for expressing their views

    ??? Ottawahitech (talk)
It doesn't really matter whether you "tried to get unblocked". There is no "right to contribute". GMGtalk 00:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by VermontEdit

Okay. I don't exactly have the time to address the problems of every comment here, as that would take a while, but let me recap the Risto hot sir situation for everyone:

  • Contributor on a handful of wikis, history of being highly obsessed with edit count (listing it manually on every user page on basically every wiki), and often unwilling to communicate constructively with others.
  • One day, Risto decided to start adding images from one Wikiquote article onto Wikiquote articles (and some Wikipedia articles) with the same name in dozens of other languages.
  • Many of these images either didn't exactly fit with the article (different language), and a lot of them actually included English captions on non-English projects.
  • Myself, other global sysops, and local editors noticed these mass-additions and started removing the English captions. In some cases, Risto reverted our removals, re-adding the English captions.
  • Risto was asked on some of these Wikiquotes, by local administrators, to stop. Risto refused on some, and on others openly challenged the local administrators in a hostile manner.
  • After a short period of time, Risto was blocked on: the English Wikipedia, the Dutch Wikipedia, the Dutch Wikiquote, the Spanish Wikiquote, and the Simple English Wikipedia. On each of these projects you can see Risto's edits and talk pages for the specific conversations and problems that preceded their blocks.
  • Risto continued adding images to many articles cross-wiki, seemingly with no purpose other than to increase their edit count. Fortunately, they stopped using English captions, but their edits remained questionable in terms of helpfulness.
  • Of course, up to this point nothing necessitated a lock, as though there were blocks on multiple projects there was no specific cross-wiki abuse.
  • This changed when Risto created a sockpuppet account to edit their userpages on wikis where they were blocked. In creating a sockpuppet account to evade blocks on multiple projects, that constituted cross-wiki abuse, and there was no option other than a global lock. You cannot be an active sockmaster on 5 wikis and a constructive editor elsewhere.
  • After being locked, Risto started socking with IP addresses and other accounts, as well as leaving hostile comments to people he blames for the consequences of his cross-wiki abuse.
  • At this point, nearly a year and a half since the account was locked, Risto is considered a long-term abuser on multiple projects, and their accounts are blocked and locked on sight.

For more detailed general information (and what is basically a timeline), you can see Risto's talk page on this project and the comments myself and others left in May 2019 and later, their Meta-Wiki edits and content about them (specifically the section(s) about them on the Stewards Noticeboard), and related pages on the specific wikis they are blocked on. This is an incredibly straightforward case. Currently, they have been engaged in block and lock evasion for well over a year. No appeal is reasonably possible so long as they continue to be an LTA. If you have any questions, please ping me and I will be happy to answer them. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Thanks for stepping forward to explain the point of view of (all?) Adminstrators and Stewards involved in the blocking and susequent global locking of User:Risto hot sir. I don't know about others, but I would like to see this user unblocked, so that they can answer these allegations. I don't believe it is a fair process otherwise. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
They are not allegations, they are facts. Risto even acknowledges both the original sockpuppet (which they used to edit wikis they were blocked on) and their continued socking, even participating in this discussion. The lock can be appealed by emailing the Stewards, but I highly doubt there is a chance of it being a successful appeal, especially considering the dozens of socks and continuing socking. Vermont (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Vermont for this information. However without any diffs it makes it impossible to follow and check, especially because the edits are scattered across half a dozen or more wikis. In addition you should also mention the name of the sockpuppet account Risto used "to edit their userpages on wikis where they were blocked". -- ~ #SheSaid 12:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@Vermont: I have a question regarding your opening comment where you said this about User: Risto hot sir:

history of being highly obsessed with edit count

.
This is my question: do you believe that Users in general should limit the number of edits they make? I believe such sentiments are usually expressed by patrollers who on enwiki are a group of editors "who check the of various articles for inappropriate edits" (I don't know if wikiquote has a similar group of editors checking special:Recentchanges) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello Ottawahitech! I am not saying users should limit their edits; rather, I was implying that the general correlation of editcountitis and self-importance applies here. Generally, users so concerned with their outward appearance in edit count are less concerned with simply improving the project. One of Risto’s initial defenses for their disruptive image and caption adding was that a small percentage of their edits were contested; yes, only a few hundred out thousands, but for obvious reasons Risto’s logic in that is flawed. Risto’s first sock was created to update their edit count figures on user pages at wikis they were blocked on. Hope this helps, Vermont (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It wasn't a sock but the other username mentioned long before the block. It had to be created due to vandalism. It wasn't blocked, and the user pages had false information. Is it really a sin to correct own user pages?--80.223.94.56 22:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Many times have I already told that I've emailed the Stewards 16 months ago. No answer. But let's look closer at the beginning: - The Dutch wikiquote seems to want to block as many users as possible (see the editing history). The reason is often "a typical name of a spammer". - The Dutch wikipedia blocked me after a couple of contributions. "Don't bite the newcomers"? - Vermont blocked me at Simple English wikipedia without me certainly having done anything disruptive there. - At Spanish wikiquote I already wrote "adios!" politely - and got blocked immediately. - At English wikipedia the keyword was "censorship". People who want to prevent folks to read other opinions than theirs don't like that word. - Vermont even thanked me for not copying English texts of images anymore. After that I've added thousands of images without revertings. - "Wanting to increase edit counts" is ridiculous. Nobody would even know the amount unless some eager detectives had drawn them together. So admins "with severe conducting problems" can do whatever they want, but why to let 'em vandalize friendly wikis (all but seven ones)? Comments please!--Armas Eesti (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have also been blocked on Dutch Wikipedia. I didn't really break any rules, they just found my language ability to be deficient and blocked me. I would vouch for Risto Hot Sir to come back. As far as I have seen his edits have not been disruptive. But I agree with BD2412 that you should follow due appeal protocol and not create sock puppet accounts. Spannerjam (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Spannerjam: Nice to see more members of the WQ community chiming in. As far as:

you should follow due appeal protocol and not create sock puppet accounts

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have posted a notice on Tks4Fish 's talkpage letting them know about this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"No one is as blind as the one who doesn't want to see."--80.223.94.56 21:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Risto continues to sock, both with accounts and IPs here. Again, so long as this remains true, no appeal for the lock or local blocks will be possible. And to address evident confusion from editors here, though Risto may not have engaged in disruptive editing on the English Wikiquote, their crosswiki abuse necessitated a lock. There is no button that blocks someone from every wiki except one, nor is there any logical reason for why such a person would continue to be entertained by the community. Vermont (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Naughty boy, you shall not contribute, or...!" So what's "or"? Just revert my useful edits - then we'll see what happens! One year ago I've waited long enough for the answers. The Stewarts should get rid of the harmful admins instead. Do you want the names? There's endless work to do to make wikis better - and I guess Vermont will not do my job.--80.223.94.56 01:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Alsee (He-who-sees-everything) has plans to mass revert all my contributions. I'm not against it. So go on! - damnae memoriae.--80.223.94.56 00:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I-who-see-everything (because I have the extraordinary ability to click a contributions link?), say that this entire discussion should be shut down as a waste of time and more evidence of this user's disruptiveness. Crosswiki abuse and global locks are debated and resolved on Meta, not here. I have filed a request for a global IP rangeblock.

This user (Risto/IP) has abundantly demonstrated a gross disregard for community rules, both with flagrant socking and in general. Anyone who disagrees with them gets attacked and cast as a comic-book villain in their personal persecution drama. They are unwilling or unable to appropriately deal with disagreements with other editors. They believe they are right and that that entitles them to violate any and all rules, entitles them to wage a self-righteous war, and to attack editors/admins/stewards as villains. The most important criteria for working in a collaborative project is being willing and able to acceptably deal with others. Their posts in this section alone provide abundant evidence of the problem. Alsee (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, I have disagreed with Risto a lot, completely remade a lot of his pages and edits, and he has never attacked me or anyone else in the projects where I've been an active contributor (mostly, Estonian Wikipedia and Wikiquote). I find the attitude of the part of the English Wikipedia community that has decided they rule over all the other projects, high and mighty, and can make their dismissive judgement about those based on their personal likes and dislikes, much more troublesome. One example mentioned above: someone hops into a project in which they don't even speak the language, marks Risto's pages for deletion, and hops out, uninterested in any discussion or the opinion of the locals. Another example: in the discussion mentioned above in which a couple of English users decided to forbid adding English Wikiquote links into English Wikipedia, it was based on arguments like "Wikiquote is broken, like Commons". English Wikiquote has a lot of problems, sure, but so does en.wp. And this colonial attitude does nothing to solve any problems. Like cited above, there are projects in which Risto has been clearly constructive, and blocking him there is NOT for the benefit of those project or their users. Risto has his faults, he doesn't take "no" for an answer and makes errors of judgement, but from the viewpoint of the projects where he has been useful, his faulty decisions are much less troublesome than those of the English community members who care nothing about the projects over which they exercise their powers. He may have been disruptive in some other project, but now this has turned just into game of whack-a-mole, where he's being blocked because he's being blocked. --Ehitaja (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Alsee: Do you really believe this discussion is a waste of time and should be shutdown immediately? I agree that it is foolhardy to attack you personally in this forum that is populated mainly by locals, many of whom support User:Risto hot sir. I for one truly appreciate hearing from anyone who has views that are different than mine, and who does it without resorting to name-calling.
I don't know if you, or any of the admins such as User: GreenMeansGo and User: Vermont, have ever been blocked, but as others who have participated in this discussion, I have (blocked 4 times and unblocked once, on other wmf sites). There are tens of thousands of blocked accounts, and only a handful of them have been unblocked, and stayed unblocked. As you said, socking ( which is not the only reason for blocks) are a major problem which wastes a lot of productive time of many many volunteers. Even Jimbo said back in 2014 :

A lot of them, they really cost more than they're worth</block>

However, I believe we have a unique opportunity here dealing with a /horse that many have tried to lead to water, but this horse can articulate the reason for his refusal to drink. Not only that, this horse can apparently do this in several "foreign" Languages, something most here cannot. I therefore do not believe this discussion should be shutdown prematurely, before we as a community can learn from it. Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ottawahitech I see no productive discussion or outcome here. Crosswiki abuse and global locks are handled at Meta, and the individual involved is entrenched in warfare. They apparently feel entitled to flagrantly violate all rules and spew personal attacks. That's the end of that.
You and I are willing to engage differing views, we are willing to respect rules and process and consensus when our personal views do not prevail. This user has positioned themselves as fundamentally at war with that. I accept the position they have defined for themself. That position is incompatible with participating in this community. Consider someone who gets a parking ticket, and escalates into a crusade against the establishment with subsequent felony convictions. They're not removed from society because of the parking ticket, they are removed from society because they are unwilling or unable behave in a civilized manner. This user knew they were violating the rules, and they just keep escalating and attacking. Alsee (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Roadmap for readers (Babe kebab)Edit

I came up with the following roadmap or those who are as confused as I am about what is what and who is who in the above discussion. I did this by simply following links available to anyone, registered or not (I think?).

I believe an informed community is a better community. I hope this roadmap helps readers get informed.

Babe kebab (A Globally locked WQ User)

BD2412 (WQ Admin and Bureaucrat)

GMG (WQ Admin and Bureaucrat)

Vermont (Global-sysop Meta Admin)

Wim b (Steward who globally locked Risto hot sir)

Note: Please feel free to add yourself to this list (if you are a participant in this discussion) and to correct errors Ottawahitech (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what this discussion is supposed to accomplish. We cannot overturn a global lock even if we wanted to. It's not a function of any role in the local toolkit, nor within our power as members of the global community. GMGtalk 18:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? We have no say in how our community is run? Would you please elaborate. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: Your puzzling comment above forced me to start investigating policy, which is something I would rather not do. Here is what I found (thanks to User: Alsee) at M:Stewards:

      The use of steward rights is restricted by policy; stewards will not use their technical access when there are local users who can use that access, except in emergencies.

    • So let me ask a stupid question: Since WQ has its own local admins why are Stewards involved here in the first place? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • @Ottawahitech: Stewards may not intervene in an administrative function when there are sufficient local admins. A global lock is not an administrative function. It is exclusively a steward function. Even as a bureaucrat, I do not have the technical ability to either enact or override a global lock. By policy, they may not enact a global lock unless a user has been indefinitely banned on multiple projects, but once a lock is in place, appealing a local block is irrelevant. Only the stewards may reverse the action. Only then may local project decide to unblock. GMGtalk 13:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
      • It is also worth noting that a global lock is global. covering literally hundreds of Wikimedia projects, with there being well over a hundred languages have their own-language Wikipedia, and most of those having at least one other active Wikimedia project (a Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.) under that language. It may be unlikely that an editor globally locked solely for activity involving English language wikis will suddenly begin to misbehave on Latvian Wiktionary or Vietnamese Wikisource, but it is nonetheless impractical for each local Wiki to address the potential for a problematic editor to invade any one of those hundreds of sites. BD2412 T 15:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Do those wikis want to be protectorates? Have you asked?

  • Protectorates? Not entirely clear what this is supposed to mean. GMGtalk 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...Edit

...is long overdue for long-term protection. Several problematic IPs (all with the same MO) are randomly adding too many extra quotes and adding unnecessary emphasis. It must be put to a stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I would send a warning to those IPs, but I cannot take any chances they will respond with a false promise/apology. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I've protected the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Toy Story and The Iron Giant...Edit

...are under attack by persistent problematic IPs. Namely the following:

24.170.255.67 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

This one constantly ignores the rules on quote limitations, and adds bias to some quotes. This IP needs to be blocked, and all of the pages on which the IP made its problematic edits be protected for no less than a year. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The IP is gone now, but I have my eye on that one, and the pages where the IP made problematic edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
Update. The IP is back. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Total Drama All-Stars and Pahkitew IslandEdit

Semi-protection: Continuous removal of content. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Dario ŠarićEdit

Vandalism. —Hasley (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)