Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/011

This page has been placed on VfD by a newly created account, arguing that it was largely created by Matt Sanchez himself. Can we please have a Checkuser report.--Poetlister 16:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what we'd be looking for in a CU report, Poetlister. Do you want confirmation that our Bluemarine (talk · contributions) is the same as Wikipedia's, who self-identifies as the article's subject? (That seems almost certain, just by the timing and editing here.) That the nominator, Slivowitz (talk · contributions), is somehow engaged in improper editing? So far, what I see are possible issues of conflict of interest, bias, living-person quotation circumspection, and bad-faith VfD nomination. For COI, we've tended to give famous editors more room than WP to edit their own articles as long as they're unquestionably notable, they scrupulously cite reliable sources for their quotes, and don't attempt to bias their articles. Bluemarine does appear to have fallen short of this goal, loading up on biographical material and quoting blogs. But other editors seemed to have successfully trimmed much of that material (reducing bias and inadequate sourcing), and in my eye (admittedly inexpert on the subject), the result, at the moment, seems arguably reasonable, well-sourced, not libelous or mean-spirited, and not unpithy (reducing article bias and WQ:QLP concerns). As for the nomination, I wouldn't be surprised if Slivowitz is a WP editor who believes in good faith that we shouldn't have a quote article created by the subject, especially when he's been banned from Wikipedia. I think the community can deal with this in the VfD discussion. If I'm missing something (and oh how likely that is these days!), let me know. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be interesting to see if this new editor Slivowitz is the same as the IP who made a lot of edits, but I'd be surprised if he isn't. At present, I'm minded to decline the request. --Cato 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editing history of Bluemarine on Wikipedia includes several confirmed sockpuppets and numerous suspected sockpuppets. As you can see from the arbitration decision regarding Bluemarine, several of these suspected sockpuppets claimed to be Matt Sanchez. Of the 17 IP users who have posted so far to our own Matt Sanchez article, one of them (talk · contributions) is on the WP suspected sockpuppet list and others have similarly ranged numbers. For this reason I would like Bluemarine on Wikiquote to be investigated by Checkuser. - InvisibleSun 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, the concern about sockpuppets is that multiple registered users are trying to appear as different people but are really a single person, possibly one or more of the IPs also involved in an article. But I see little significant editing from other registered users whom I don't already know. AGF suggests interpreting a single instance of an IP edit associated with Bluemarine as an accidental logged-out edit (especially since it was just changing WP ref-tagging to WQ source-line format). And I hadn't noticed any "similarly ranged numbers". Bluemarine's is a Verizon New York City broadband address, while is a PacBell DSL IP apparently from San Francisco, according to public queries, and the other IPs ranges seem even more diverse. (Indeed, although I haven't crossed-checked them with the 1000+-edit w:Matt Sanchez yet, I suspect many might be WP editors who are trying to make sure our article is handled appropriately, too.)
I would consider checking and reporting if there is any sockpuppetry involved here, but I'd prefer to have specific suggestions of deceptive editing here to make this a more plausible justification for CU. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page to its pre-controversy state and locked it. In view of the heated discussion, I would be happy for an uninvolved admin to lock it in another version, but I believe that the lock is necessary until the AfD is complete.--Poetlister 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, at present there is no User:Slivowitz on Wikipedia. [1] We should therefore find out who he is on Wikipedia and what role he has played regarding Matt Sanchez there.--Poetlister 21:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the community decided to keep the article. How to organize is, another story I think, and it will be based on our future discussion. --Aphaia 09:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slivowitz now says that 'I don't have any names "elsewhere,"' and accuses another editor of bad faith.[2] If that is not true, it suggests a degree of bad faith on his own part.--Poetlister 17:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP checkusers have identified his account on WP, using both IP matches and other evidence. It is indeed bad faith to deny this and attack another editor. I shall not say more at present.--Cato 21:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation request: Yuyu_temp --> Yuyu


I would like to take over User:Yuyu (no edits). I'm using Yuyu on most of the project, en as a sysop in zh.wikipedia. --Yuyu temp 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a request on Yuyu's talk page, and e-mail if possible. We will then do it after three weeks. Thanks.--Poetlister 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question issued on 26 April, no response has come yet. I suppose we can now fulfill this request without problem. --Aphaia 04:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renames: Yuyu -> Yuyu (usurped); Yuyu_temp -> Yuyu. --Poetlister 11:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation request: Kaustubh <- Kausshas3


I would like to take over the account User:Kaustubh (no edits); I am using username Kaustubh on several projects, including mr:wp, commons, en:wp, meta and since my successful usurpation on en:wp too. I would like to be able to use that name everywhere with upcomming SUL.

--Kausshas3 06:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have not yet settled upon a definite time frame for handling these requests, but a notice should be given on the user's talk page that such a request is being made. ~ Kalki 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without notification and a decent waiting time, no usurpation is automatically granted. See also WQ:CHU while it is still being drafted. Thanks for your understanding. --Aphaia 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your efforts to format policy regarding usurpations. But still, as there are (no edits) from the said User:Kaustubh, (also no e-mail is set), IMO a short period (around 2 weeks) should be sufficient to act upon. Still, I am ready to wait as long as required. Regards, --Kausshas3 04:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, not only showing patience. Yes, I tend to agree two weeks are short: but I don't think one year is a fair deal for people who request for usurpation. We have an on-going discussion on its talk page, you are welcome to join the discussion at Wikiquote talk:Changing username. Cheers, --Aphaia 04:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now three weeks are elapsed and there is no activity from User:Kaustubh. Can I have my request fulfilled? Regards, --Kausshas3 04:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted; both accounts renamed.--Poetlister 11:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Poetlister. --Kaustubh 11:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation request


I would like to request usurpation of the created but unused User:Bryan for SUL. meta. Bryan Tong Minh 10:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy draft at Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation and follow the guidance. While it is not our official policy yet, a summary of our being formed convention. Thank you for your understanding. --Aphaia 11:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on 2 May, so I'll check back the 23rd. Bryan Tong Minh 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts renamed. --Aphaia 13:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Bryan 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew's comments


User:Jack Merridew left the comments below on my talk page.--Poetlister 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User:TTN here, is quite likely an impersonator of w:User:TTN, who's just been made aware of the account here. If en's TTN disavows the account here it should be blocked (if the edits to the user page aren't enough). Congrats on your return to en; we have a sort of similarity there. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add; this diff should be enough to determine that it's an impostor. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about starting to test those two, WQ:CHU and WQ:CHU/U from this weekend (2008/05/10 0:00 UTC)?

I said on WQ:VP that trial may last one month at least, but now am thinking it won't be sufficient. Since we ask the requesters of usurpation to wait for three weeks, after one month test we may have only the four or so finished cases presumably. I propose therefore we have a two month trial, so the trial phase may end at 07/09.

Thought? --Aphaia 05:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation is a very big thing. We don't want to rush it, so I am happy to have a two-month trial.--Poetlister 13:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request for attack names


Three accounts were created, all within the same minute, involving names that are attacks on Poetlister. They are: User:Poetlister ist eine Sau!, User:Poetlister, du drekiger ars! and User:Plister stenkt nech jeuche!. I have permanently blocked these accounts. A Checkuser search would be much appreciated. - InvisibleSun 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of these usernames were created from the same IP, as suspected. None seems to have done any editing under any IP. The underlying IP has automatically been temporarily blocked, but I'll keep an eye out for further mischief and copy the other CUs on the details. Thanks for catching this! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Would anyone mind if I rename those accounts? I wonder if it's someone who knows that I lived in Germany for a year?--Poetlister 14:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am skeptical the person have known you personally ... but it could happen that was known (at least we all know it right now). Accounts were renamed. I deleted user and user talk pages also, since they could have been stored in search engines, if someone tries to search those nasty words. For offensive user names, I'd rather recommend not to use {{vblock}} but protect that page for avoiding crawlers. --Aphaia 16:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a huge fan of w:WP:RBI myself, so I'd rather not post vblocks for obvious serial vandals anyway. And I think it'd be at least a minor demotivator to rename all attack usernames to something incredibly boring and mostly indistinguishable from all the other attacker names (like U00000000001, etc.). The only thing I'd want to make sure of is that we practice this only for obvious attacks from serial offenders, like these recent names, not borderline names from apparently innocent folks. (The former is more common just from the scale of the attacks, but the latter happens on occasion.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the renames.--Poetlister 17:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account unblock


Please unblock my account User:Петър Петров as non-lating usernames are now permitted and this is my SUL account. Also delete the user and talk pages so I can move my real ones there. Thanks. --Petar Petrov 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Aphaia 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Петър Петров 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AutoWikiBrowser approval


Can you add me to the AWB checkpage? I would like to help correct typos, as you can see in my contributions. I've used it extensively on the English Wikipedia for quite a while now. Thanks. — Wenli (reply here) 03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this request has been addressed yet. Do we have a process for this? Wikipedia has a checkpage that I'm sure they use, and we have one too, but I don't recall how ours was implemented. Does AWB actually check against ours, or are we just using it for documentation? (I'm suspicious because Cbrown1023 added all our admins when he created it on 14 April 2007, and I'd be surprised if every admin at that time had actually requested AWB access or knew how to use it. And I was using AWB here long before we had a checkpage.)
We also probably need to think about how to make sure requesting users from other projects are who they say they are. I have no reason off-hand to doubt Wenli, but although their userpage here says they're from WP, w:User:Wenli currently makes no mention of other project accounts. It does suggest they're a strong anti-vandalism worker concerned about protecting their identity. This type of Wikimedia editor is a favorite target of impersonators, and AWB can magnify damage done by bad-faith editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, we ask Wenli to make an agreed edit to his user page.--Poetlister 11:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My account is unified, as you can see here (the account was "merged by user" which indicates that it is part of the account). — Wenli (reply here) 03:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my user page; see [3]. — Wenli (reply here) 03:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added you to the list. Sorry for the delay. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Username change


Old name: Missingno000

New name: CJMiller

Reason: SUL.

And in re: same request from 12/07 (cf. User talk:Missingno000), this confirms that.

I wish to change my username to CJMiller, to allow nomenclaturial conformity across all Wikimedia projects. CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 02:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please post to WQ:CHU.--Poetlister 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steward action to usurp user


I see that Rdsmith4 used Steward powers to usurp a user here. [4] Is it normal for stewards to do so without checking with local bureaucrats? Our policy about posting a notice on the user page was not followed.--Poetlister 14:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about bureaucrats, but if it had been a checkuser action we'd have grounds for a complaint.--Cato 18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he did that after I asked him to, the user he renamed wasn't the same user but Grawp who stole the name from Giggy because an enwiki crat forgot to register and block that account and thus he managed to unify here and steal that account..I believe it is a checkuser action and more information will be available on the Cu-list ...--Cometstyles 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not mentioned on the CU list.--Cato 13:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, since an enwiki crat made that error, what happened was that via w:WP:CHU, Giggy, formerly known as "Dihydrogen Monoxide" was renamed back to "Giggy" but the crat that renamed him forgot to register that account and block it and so Grawp made an account using the same name "Dihydrogen Monoxide" here and unified it without anyone suspecting anything and when I found out about it, I told a CU (an arbie on enwiki) to CU it for me but he didn't do it, and so while I waited for alison to come (the only cu on enwiki willing to help sadly) and nothing happened, I alerted a steward about it who renamed the user here on enwq as well as enwiki but forgot to block him on enwiki as you can see here.. i hope that fixes the misunderstanding? and if i was you, I would think about blocking him here too  ;) ...--Cometstyles 05:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comet, your way of talks sound very strange. You talked only enwiki people, and then you had a steward intervene English WIKIQUOTE. Do you realize you are not then on English Wikipedia? Informing enwiki crats are not same informing us. It is totally irrelevant and not a good reason to ignore our policy. English Wikipedia policy only rules English Wikipedia. NOT ENGLISH WIKIQUOTE. Could you please understand, guys? --Aphaia 07:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cometstyles has got it right. Apologies for not making it obvious that this was merely a bit of vandalism preemption. — Dan | talk 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that more recently, Bastique has done the same thing. [5] The first one is allegedly a "vandal impostor" but the second has no justification.--Poetlister 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Dan, I disagree. Your problem is not only you didn't mention "this was merely a bit of vandalism preemption". You should have contacted local 'crats instead. You acted not following our policy and procedure. And you are not allowed to perform your right where a local bureaucrat is available or there is a local policy. I would like you to realize you breach the steward rule, not only our local community policy and procedure. --Aphaia 06:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have semi-protected that page and its talk page due to ongoing problems. Can another admin please look at the recent edits? In my opinion, the two quotes added by are not notable and could be construed as an attack on a living person, and I see no justification for removing the photo, but another opinion is always helpful.--Poetlister 08:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but as I've already been involved with that article I won't touch it.--Yehudi 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are notable, and are properly sourced to Sanchez in, and The Alan Colmes Show. The military photo was removed because Sanchez was expelled from the Marines, and the page was giving an (incorrect) impression that Sanchez is active military. When Poetlister previously restored the photo in question, her edit summary -- ("I prefer the other picture") -- was glib, unilateral, and paid not even lip service to building consensus.
Several editors voiced no objection to the previous, neutral photo (the same one that appears on Wikipedia). Feel free to restore it. -- 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the great majority of editors have expressed no opinion whatever on the phot. That does not give you carte blanche to alter it and condemn another editor for disagreeing. I shall restore the photo, though I shall delete it again if there is significant opposition.--Yehudi 18:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can save the high dudgeon and the falsities for somewhere else. There's indeed "significant" opposition. I'll remove the photo again. Feel free to replace it with the NPOV, neutral one that was formerly on the page. And you had the right idea the first time. -- 03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the photo. Please do not make controversial edits without discussion on the talk page.--Poetlister 16:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have again removed the inappropriate photo, which you placed unilaterally, without consensus. Stop wheel-warring. --Slivowitz 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the restoration of the photo, as do other editors (I see someone else has restored it). Does any other editor agree with its removal? And wheel-warring? I must have missed your RfA.--Yehudi 22:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support it, too. - Arbok 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbok is a persistent vandal. (Check his Talk page for the warnings.) Yehudi, you're going to need better justification for an official Marine photo for an expelled Marine than "I support it." Explain your reasoning please. --Slivowitz 06:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I looked at this. There's a link that says he's in the Marine Reserves and nothing to say he's expelled. You'd better prove your facts bud or it's libel. I'll put the photo back if I can work out how to.--Crum375 09:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slivowitz removed the photo again, clearly against consensus and with no justification other than "wheel-war" (although he is of course not an admin). If he does it again, can someone please block him for a period for disruptive behaviour.--Yehudi 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yehudi. - Arbok 17:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slivowitz removed the photo again, against consensus and citing no reason. Can someone please block him for disruption.--Cato 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block him for 7 days.--Poetlister 06:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I joined Wikiquote about a month ago and now I unfied my Wikimedia acount so I have access via Etineskid could you delete my Adiokid account or tell me how to because I won't use it so then someone else who wants to use the Username Adiokid can. Please contact me via User:Etineskid Talk. Adiokid 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible to delete an account. You can ask for it to be renamed on WQ:CHU.--Yehudi 23:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Some admin eyes on Portal (game) would be nice. I'm fighting a losing battle against overuse of non-free material. Will {talk) 05:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone protect the page, please? I'm annoyed of having the copyright cull undone. Will (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the article to your version, Sceptre, and posted a note under Talk:Portal (game)#Excessive quoting. about why so much material is not good, and what may happen if it continues. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still happening :/ Will (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming a nightmare. Will (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martinez & Caldwell nonsense hoaxes


In re the {{Db}}-tagged Martinez & Caldwell page created by user WashingMachine11 (talk · contributions):

see Wikipedia:User talk:Athaenara#Protection of deleted article for a discussion of related nonsense/hoax articles repeatedly re-created by ten (so far) socks on Wikipedia en. — Athaenara (contribs) 22:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the hoax article and blocked the associated account which created it. Thanks for the information. ~ Kalki 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome! The sock crew is still active over there. Athaenara 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jean Girard. Athaenara 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, heading up. I got an IP address behind two socks who are stick on this hoax (and another). The IP was already blocked and I blocked one missed sock. The hoax pages are protected to create. Thanks. --Aphaia 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Arbok (talk · contributions) has just been blocked for one week for vandalism on User talk:Sceptre, Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, Portal (game), and Tenth Doctor. The user was getting close to trolling: in particular, he was indiscriminately reverting my contributions, despite the fact he was vandalising (copyrights and talk page vandalism), and he was rapidly reverting at a pace that almost necessitated steward intervention. I've just closed his RFA because there is no way he's going to pass now. Will (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a large amount of vandalism being done in progress, so I blocked the offending user and asked Sceptre to leave a comment on here so that the rest of the administrators could decide what to do next. Soon after the block, I received an e-mail from Arbok.

Subject: Listen here!
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:27:02 +0000
From: Arbok <email censored>
To: Cbrown1023 <email censored>

You listen here, Mr. Administrator! Scepter was one at fault here. He kept ignoring Jeff's comments. Look at what JeffQ clearly stated to him.

I suggest that you unblock me and block him. Okay?

- <name censored>.

This e-mail was sent by Arbok to Cbrown1023 by the "Email user" function at Wikiquote.

Feel free to reverse the block at any time depending upon the consensus of other administrators. Cbrown1023 talk 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the block. I am not sure if Sceptre should have closed the RfA as he was involved in the dispute, but I am happy to see it closed. Can I please request a Checkuser on Arbok.--Poetlister 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbok has more than worn out several admins' attempts to assume good faith through his many failures to follow advice and then warnings, and now his obviously deliberately one-sided interpretation of my advice to both him and Will (Sceptre). I endorse (A) his block (which should be extended if he resumes any disruption after it expires); (B) the cancellation of his clearly retaliatory WQ:VIP post against; and (C) a permanent opposition to his pointless request for adminship. I'm afraid I don't see any way in which Wikiquote will benefit from his further activity here. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never say never. People can mature, change their ways, and become productive. Not predicting this will happen with Arbok, but I would oppose any permanent opposition to any future advancement unless the subject had earned a permanent block, which is apparently not the case here. I've seen vandals turn around, become productive, and eventually become admins on Wikipiedia, and frankly I've also seen model editors become admins only to reveal their true colors as uncharacteristically patient vandals. At least with this guy we know to keep both eyes open. BD2412 T 02:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. My fingers twitched when I wrote "permanent", but I'm afraid completed my hastily chosen word (hastiness being the very problem I'm citing others for) because I was frustrated with the little time I have to keep up with current events here, never mind my vast Wikiquote backlog. I still think Arbok is naive and excitable more than malicious, and I've seen other folks more problematic nevertheless become useful editors. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing blocking, not permanent blocking in this moment though. Requesting for running checkuser is another topic. I've given no close look to his behavior. Is there any possibility multiple accounts are stocked? Or we have a necessity to contact his ISP right now? Since I'm not familiar with his modus operandi, any information about his behavior will be helpful. --Aphaia 04:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block (and unblock) of User:Crum375


Greetings. A Wikipedia administrator named w:User:Crum375, with whom I had not previously interacted, saw that I was an admin on Wikiquote and e-mailed me about a concern. He noticed that someone had recently registered the name User:Crum375 (contribs) here on Wikiquote, and he was concerned about impersonation. I'm aware that Crum375 on the English Wikipedia is a rather controversial figure, and has his share of enemies. Whether these enemies are earned or not doesn't really matter to me in this case; impersonation is obviously not allowed.

I read up on Wikiquote's blocking policy and read that "Usernames that are designed to impersonate legitimate users may be blocked immediately and indefinitely." So I blocked the user, and left an explanatory note at User talk:Crum375. (I've also kept an eye on his talkpage to see if he had questions or needed help creating a new account.)

User:Poetlister reversed the block, stating "AGF no reason to suspect impersonation; good user". She also e-mailed me to notify me of the unblock. I disagree. "Crum375" is an unlikely combination of characters, I find it unlikely that someone would have randomly chosen the same username of a controversial admin on Wikimedia's most popular project. The person using the name of Crum375 on Wikiquote has been a good contributor, and hope he or she will continue to contribute under an appropriate username, but our impersonation policy is there for a reason, and I think it should be held to. In fact, one of the aims of Unified login is to prevent this sort of thing from happening. As the separate Wikimedia projects merge, these things will cause more and more problems.

I've brought this here to get more community input. I don't think the Wikiquote Crum375 should be punished or discouraged in any way, but I do think we should prevent impersonation, or even the appearance thereof. Any input would be appreciated. All the best, Quadell 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are of course all delighted to see Quadell back after his seven month break, and look forward to the resumption of his excellent contributions. However, I cannot agree with Quadell's interpretation of our policy. It says:
Usernames that are designed to impersonate legitimate users may be blocked immediately and indefinitely. The IP address of these users should be left autoblocked. Accounts and IP addresses that illegitimately use another account's name in the signature should be warned first, and then can be blocked.
Please be sure that the account is a malicious impersonator before blocking it; someone might choose a name similar to that of another user without any ill intent. Use common sense. If the suspected impersonators are vandalising, flaming other users, or otherwise acting with malice, then they should be blocked immediately. If they are making legitimate edits, they should be told of the possible confusion and encouraged to change usernames.
Firstly, I do not understand that as relating to accounts on other wikis; this is concerned with impersonation on WQ. There are many instances of different people using the same name on different Wikis. For example, there are users called Alison on cawiki and dewiki who are not the Alison here and set up their accounts before hers. There is even an admin called Cato on nnwiki who took the name before our Cato. We are scarcely going to block Alison and Cato as impersonators!
Secondly, even if this policy does apply to other Wikis, the onus is on Quadell to show that his name was designed to impersonate legitimate users and explain why he is "sure that the account is a malicious impersonator". It seems to me that even if he deliberately chose to use the same name as someone else, it is more likely to be a joke than malicious. If he did it because he's an enemy of Crum375 who's trying to bring him into disrepute, he's failed miserably.
Thirdly, our Crum375 is not "vandalising, flaming other users, or otherwise acting with malice". Given that he is only making legitimate edits, he "should be told of the possible confusion and encouraged to change usernames", not blocked without warning.
Quadell says that he has had no previous interactions with the other Crum375. Please could he explain what happened between them a month ago if it was not an interaction.'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive447#I_have_blocked_Para_and_Crum375_for_edit_warring_on_Brown_Dog_affair
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with Crum375 seeking out an admin who had recently helped him in a dispute; I am just trying to clarify what Quadell means.
I totally agree with what Quadell said in the second link: "Viridae came here in good faith looking for feedback, and he got it: next time, warn first. Live and learn." and "Remember, please: AGF, or rather WYCAGFALKITY. (When You Can't Assume Good Faith, At Least Keep It To Yourself.)" --Poetlister 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello guys, I am not sure if it was designed for impersonation; I am not sure either if it was not designed for impersonation. Crum could be common as well as Cato or Alison, but the combination of three digits could be designed or just coincident (3/1000 is not so common; it is not so rare theoretically, too).
Crum375 on enwiki is welcome to ask Crum375 here for usurpation. Quadell can ask on his or her behalf, I think. But in our current policy, the situation are not compelling for me to take any action.
So, a proposal. How about running a check on the account in question, if the community think it appropriate? Thought, guys? --Aphaia 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a check would clear the air, then certainly.--Poetlister 16:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On en.Wikipedia, if you click the "e-mail this user" link for User:Crum375, that person states that the Crum375 here on Wikiquote is not him. I don't think there's anyone who doubts that they are operated by different individuals.
If using the exact same name as a controversial admin, with the same 1-in-1000 numeric combination, is not impersonation, then I don't see why we have a policy against impersonation at all. (This tool shows that there are no other Wikiquote usernames that start with "Crum", making the 375 more than a little odd.) If we're not going to enforce our policies, why have them?
(To answer Poetlister's question, I unblocked Crum375 on en.wikipedia when there was consensus on AN/I that an unblock was appropriate. Yes, I imagine that that's how he found my username, though he didn't mention it. But, as I said, I had not previously interacted with him. I'm not sure how this is relevant though.) Quadell 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for offline (email-based) secrecy here. The best way to resolve this is to ask w:User:Crum375 if they are our Crum375, and have them reply on their WP talk page, which can be checked for post ownership. If so, we should probably ask (if not insist) that our otherwise good but relatively new editor (46 edits in 4 months) choose a name that doesn't exactly match a WP editor with over 12,000 edits in more than 2 years. I have posted the question. If we get a negative response, let's urge our current Crum375 to pick a new name and move them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very mature response. The only trouble is, if the account was in fact created to impersonate another user, it seems unlikely that he would relinquish it voluntarily. Quadell 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's unlikely if it's a troll. But far too many infrequent Wikiquotians (i.e., visiting Wikipedians) are prepared to assume this instead of testing it, despite the fact that we've all spent an absurdly much greater effort here bickering about it, obviating any argument that it's too inconvenient to bother even making a single AGF attempt. This is not the Wikiquote way, and the more our increasing number of visiting Wikipedians argue that it should be, the less credibility they will have here. There's a better way to do this, in line with both Wikiquote's and Meta's policies on usurpation, and ten times the Wikipedians posting here will only strengthen our moral position on this, because we are merely insisting that w:User:Crum375 follow the policies we've now bent over backward to tell him, which so far he has refused to do. I would remind those visitors of the sage advice that one should not participate in a project unless one is willing to abide by its rules. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quadell said "if the account was in fact created to impersonate another user, it seems unlikely that he would relinquish it voluntarily. " Generally true, but I don't like this logic. It was exactly said to ja users whose user account was in Japanese characters and hence blocked on English Wikipedia at that time. And they / you said "if they are not trolls, they will voluntarily change their names" ... and it was just because they didn't like their names. You guys now seem to me to go the same route. Hopefully not, but your argument sounds very dangerous to me: too subjective. English Wikipedia wisely reviewed their own policy and some of them retrieved their username. But if you think all is over, you are simply wrong. English Wikipedia didn't even hesitate to block other project's bureaucrat and disappointed not only them but their community which placed their trust upon them. I know some editor who left the project, feel very disappointed. Please do not impose your common sense, guys, whose culture and custom are different from you and do not expel more people from those smaller community. Being small does not mean they silently obey your common sense. Being rational is not same to feel like in your way. You English Wikipedia convenience and common sense has expelled other smaller communities trusted users with disappointment. Please stop it. Now. Not every Wikimedia project is English Wikipedia. Thank you. --Aphaia 07:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeff Q for your attempt on English Wikipedia. I put my thought about it on another section. On my side, I've processed only requests on WQ:RENAME and will. Reminders are welcome, but it is not a request that saying "whoever rational can ..." yadda yadda on a wiki either on this wiki or on the other wiki, as the person in quesetion is now doing. --Aphaia 03:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell's question


To answer Quadell's question "If we're not going to enforce our policies, why have them?", the answer is that we have no policy whatsoever against someone here having the same name as a user elsewhere. If we did, then as Poetlister says, Quadell would have blocked me as soon as I started. Where we do definitely have a policy though is on usurpation, WQ:USURP. I see no request from this other Crum375 on that page, so clearly we should do nothing until he does.

Actually though, the more important question is why Quadell so flagrantly violated our policies by blocking Crum375 without warning. "If the suspected impersonators are vandalising, flaming other users, or otherwise acting with malice, then they should be blocked immediately. If they are making legitimate edits, they should be told of the possible confusion and encouraged to change usernames." Where has Crum375 vandalised, flamed or acted with malice? Is that not what we should be discussing?--Cato 18:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please calm down a bit, everyone? Yes, Quadell did not follow our policy, but his block was properly reversed by Poetlister, and he came here to raise the issue rather than try again. At the very least, as Poetlister shows above, he misspoke about not having interacted with WP's Crum375 before; personally, I would initially AGF for a WP editor whose interaction was something like 700 edits ago. (I know I myself sometimes forgot usernames that I interacted with when I was doing upwards of 2,000 edits a month on WQ alone.) Whatever his faults, Quadell is currently making WP's Crum375's case, but that's a favor for the latter. It's WP's Crum375's case to make, and he has responded to my query saying that he considers this account an impersonation. Querying WP's user pages for "Crum*", as well as our own user pages, indeed suggests (but does not prove) that this name selection was no accident. But WQ:AGF would suggest that, pending WP's Crum375's usurpation request (which I've recommended he make directly), we go to our current Crum375 and ask nicely to allow this username to be usurped, since the WP user is a well-established and apparently fairly well-known one. More than that (including an evaluation of the possibility that this is an intentional impersonation not yet become malicious) should wait for a response from the current Crum375 (talk · contributions).
As for Quadell, who is still very active on WP but not here, we should ask him if he wishes to review our policies and practices so that he can avoid such mistakes in the future. If he's too busy or unwilling, we might reasonably ask him to resign his adminship here, not out of punishment but simply because — as I've often pointed out in WQ RFAs — there are enough differences between WQ and WP that it is essential for active admins to understand and follow current policies and practices. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that WP and WQ policies are different in important ways, and I certainly intend to stay on top of Wikiquote's policies. I do believe that the block was in line with our policy, since the it seems incredible to me that the username choice was not "designed to impersonate". (I also was referring to talking with wp:Crum375 as "interacting". If unblocking an account is "interacting", then I suppose I did once. I'm still not sure why so much attention is focused on this aspect.) Quadell 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Cato, if it was a deliberate impersonation, I would like to call it "action with malice". However I am not sure if it was as well as I am not sure if it wasn't.
Giving a thought again, I think I'll want to welcome cordially Crum375 on enwiki is asking the other for usurpation. But I am also afraid it will be an overkill that any other does so, even in a good intent. I suppose it would be no overreaction to ask the Crum375 here to put a note on his or her user page "I am not Crum375 on the English Wikipedia" or so. If s/he denies, then I would like to consider it an impersonation with malicious intent. --Aphaia 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with above): The WQ:Crum375 obviously has not vandalised or flamed, and I don't accuse him of this. I just saw that the username violates our policy, that's all. What would a warning do? He hasn't been acting out of line; his only problem was the name he chose. Yes, our policy says "If they are making legitimate edits, they should be told of the possible confusion and encouraged to change usernames", and it also says, above that, "Usernames that are designed to impersonate legitimate users may be blocked immediately and indefinitely." We're all reading the same policy page.

I think it would be willfully naive to imagine that this thousand-to-one username copy was not designed to impersonate a legitimate user. "Cato" (or "Quadell", for that matter) could reasonably be chosen independently on separate wikis, but when the only Crum... name is exactly identical? Sorry, I don't buy it. And you could argue that a Wikipedia user is not a "legitimate user" if he does not already have an account here on Wikiquote, but the expanding unified login functionality is going to make that position less and less tenable as time goes on. Quadell 19:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quadell, I am afraid only you alone buy the position the WQ Crum was an imposter without any further evidence or investigation. That is why this issue is focused, I guess. That said, I cannot support your argument including block legitimacy, and I don't take his name as a clear violation of our policy. It could be, or not, as I said. And in my observation, you alone claim it violation of our policy without any doubt. And I think, to prevent confusion, it may be only sufficient to put a note of their identities.--Aphaia 21:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a regular on WQ, but I am extremely concerned by this incident.
AGF is nice and good. Assuming good faith in this particular case is stretching the bounds of reason.
The account name "Crum375" is not random - it's used on another WMF project, and not in common or even unusual use outside WMF projects. The odds of someone else innocently coming up with it out of nowhere are mind-numbingly small. Given how much harrassment Crum375 has been subjected to on and around enwiki, this is clearly and blatantly an attempt to harrass and impersonate him.
Please do not allow Wikiquote to be party to this ongoing campaign against Crum. Use common sense. This is undoubtedly someone up to no good. Block the account. Georgewilliamherbert 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wp-en Crum375 is part of a clique that likes to play the "harassment card" to stifle dissent and get the upper hand, so any claims of harassment by him or on his behalf need to be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. However, I have to agree that this particular case is likely to be an intentional attempt at impersonation, though it's odd that it's being done using reasonable edits instead of vandalism or drama under the fake name. Dtobias 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Dan, is it time for the Two Minutes Hate again already? And I see you're beating one of your two long dead pet hobby-horses again, the "clique". As for the reason for doing this, it's quite obviously a subtle way of ensuring that Crum cannot unify his accounts. I'm sure the creator is reveling in the discomfort and drama this has created. Jayjg 22:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with GWH that this may be impersonation. Crum is a very controverial administrator on Wikipedia, and the number 375 being the only numerical suffix of any username starting with Crum seems very suspect, and my good faith wouldn't stretch so far as to deny any link at all. However, it hasn't done anything wrong, and if it keeps to non-controversial material, it should be fine. Will (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Georgewilliamherbert and Dtobias, but you may be aware you guys are random editors for us, and your argument could sound not so compelling. I am not sure your enwiki guys' criterial about "clear harassment". Once I asked for blocking on w:User:Deadaphaia and usurpation, but it was denied for the sake of AGF, since the editor did reasonable edits instead of vandalism. And in my opinion it was less random than three digits. I offered an invesitation but you guys didn't show interest. It is up to you, of course. But I rather took it as your clique preference and favoritism. I feel deeply offended regarding those issues.
Also I think I have the common sense, as one-year experienced bureaucrat and CU, and rather feel offended to be ordered so by someone unknown. I don't care if you don't know me. If you don't think I use my common sense, OK, it is up to you. You can conceive any thought you want. But then you were better not to expect anything from me. I daresay I don't perceive why you can so boldly mock me. Thanks. --Aphaia 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Personally, I think this discussion demonstrates just how important "assume good faith" is throughout Wikimedia, and just how hard it is even for experienced editors to do it. Yes, the odds are highly against our current Crum375 having accidentally chosen this name. But instead of going through any basic practice of informing the possibly impersonated user and telling them how to get this fixed, we're too busy arguing with each other here. (I've started the proper process, despite Quadell's shortcut, but I have only two true priorities right now on WQ, and this one — trying to moderate contentious problems and advise editors — is distracting me from the other, rather critical one. I'd rather have someone with more time work with w:User:Crum375 to resolve this.) From what I see, most of the argument comes from Wikipedians' ignorance (including, I'm afraid, our own Quadell) of why we work much harder than many other projects to AGF, and Wikiquotians' failure (I can't say ignorance, 'cuz we're nearly all WPians, too) to take into account how WPians' far greater problems with trolls, etc., make them much more likely to jump right to the most likely conclusions.

To Quadell, I will say that you do not seem to be aware how much we consider editing to be the primary evidence of misbehavior. We don't have the impossible reams of policy here — we couldn't hope to maintain them — but it's established practice that we make at least one attempt to work civilly with editors who have done nothing but good edits, unless their impersonation is uncontestable, or the username creation or operation coincides with an active cross-project disruption. The people who work here every day have already made it clear that we do not consider this 7-letter name corresponding to a WP admin many of us have never heard of to be a good reason to ignore pratice and block immediately. (This might not seem reasonable to you, but it's less than helpful to argue such a point with the people who are actively maintaining the project, any more than it would be for us to do so on WP without substantial recent activity there.) If there is any active cross-project disruption going on, no one involved has bothered to give us links yet to make this clear. We frequently cooperate on these issues, but we expect some specific information. Far too many Wikipedians assume that everyone in Wikimedia should defer to the flagship project's desires, and we're just a little touchy about this.

To Aphaia, I would suggest that it isn't exactly reasonable to hold it against Quadell that "you guys" didn't take prompt action in a similar situation, unless Quadell was part of "you guys". Even with only 20 or so active and semi-active admins, Wikiquotians' responses to situations can vary, too. We can't control what Wikipedia does; we can only try to do our best here.

To the rest of us regular Wikiquotians, please, let's try to remember how much more nastiness Wikipedians have to put up with, merely by being the vastly larger and better-known target. They will often incorrectly assume that our policies and practices are almost wholly derived from theirs, and they're not far wrong in many cases. But when they ask for or even do something out of line, let's try to AGF for them too.

On Quadell's admin actions, I still maintain that it is a serious problem when we have an admin who tries to apply a Wikipedia mindset, developed by more severe problems and therefore much less AGF by circumstances, to Wikiquote. I amend my earlier statement. I fear that it will take more than just reviewing our policies for Quadell to appreciate how much differently we're doing things here now. Many of our practices are unwritten, and are expected to be picked up by osmosis by our newer editors and admins. (That doesn't prevent these practices from changing over time, but it makes the change more gradual, more suited to WQ's slower pace.) If Quadell were applying for sysop status today, based on this situation, I would have to "oppose for now" while asking him to spend more time working on WQ to absorb these practices through interaction with editors and admins. I have done this many times, even for highly experienced WP admins, and I believe this is important to keep WQ running well. This is in no way intended as an insult to Quadell, who has been a seminal contributor to Wikiquote in the past. It merely acknowledges the need to stay current on a project that lacks much of the formalism of Wikipedia, especially when one has admin powers. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crum375 SUL status

  • Just as a note (after hearing about this elsewhere), I went and checked Meta:Special:CentralAuth to see the status of this account... Crum375 is a unified (SUL) account and is present and attached on 11 wikis. There are two where Crum375 is not attached, this one, and one other. What is the en:wp en:wq policy on usurpation against the account holder's will? Has the local Crum375 already been asked if they would willingly relinquish? That would be a polite thing to do. Many of the other wikis I take part in will not usurp an account with valid contributions, especially recent ones, no matter how many contribs the "larger" account has. So as an outside observer (and nothing more, my edits here are paltry and certainly give me no say in policy) I'd say the local account ought to be asked if they would willingly stand aside. That it was an attempt to impersonate (and perhaps inconvenience) the larger account seems fairly clear to me. It's a subtle form of harassment that uses good contributions to accomplish its goals though, so I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as harassment. :) I hope this information is helpful. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lar, thanks for your opinion, and I respectfully oppose you here. If there is a larger account, we must know that? Even in a limit, if there is a large ENWP account, a potential ENWQ user should be aware of that before registration? I think Cato's argument is convincing and find yours not. As I said on the above: you took Deadaphaia was not malicious whose account holder was likely from Japan, but you say a possibly coincidental Crum375 is likely a product of malice. Both arguments are based on your subjectivity. I don't agree on the first and therefore you may know I don't feel like you and how you feel doesn't convince me, either. Period. --Aphaia 09:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now I realized I must ask another question: Lar, you asked "What is the en:wp policy on usurpation against the account holder's will?" I think you asked very irrelevant thing here. And you as ENWP sysop may know it better than us. Lar, what do you intend with your question? Why did you ask such? --Aphaia 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a typo which I have struck. I meant to type en:wq but it seems when I get as far as en:w my fingers almost automatically type p... sigh... I missed it on proofreading. My question was to ask what is the usurpation policy HERE. Not anywhere else. Sorry for confusion on that. But really, Cato's argument that this is random coincidence is not at all convincing, and if you think about the probabilities of someone arriving at those 7 characters randomly, you'll see why. Really, making that argument undermines the credibility of whoever makes it. Accept that this was almost certainly an impersonation... and then decide what to do about it. ++Lar: t/c 12:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks; see WQ:CHU/U while it is still a draft, we'll soon formalize it, I expect. And said on the above, I disagree with you here, Larry Pieniazek, and I repeat I do not enjoy being ordered in such a rude manner and illogically. And I didn't say there were a random choice of seven ascii characters. Rather a random choice of a word and three random digit. Then you don't take offensive Deadaphia and ordered me to take your subjective argument compelling? Sorry, No, thank you. That really says you are cruel and senseless to take Deadaphaia accessible and from my view but I could be so and hence underestimable for you on my thought on those two accounts, just because I don't think as you feel. I let you underestimate, Mr. Pieniazek, but I won't do: I know it is just from diversity of culture. Thanks. --Aphaia 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the pointer to WQ:CHU/U... seems a quite reasonable policy to me. I don't think I'm ordering you or anyone to do anything. If you think I am, I apologise. I don't quite understand where this hostility is coming from, frankly. It's not like you, you and I have worked together for years now, quite successfully, and I thought we were friends. ++Lar: t/c 14:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must declare an interest since, like Alison, I am an impersonator of an account on dewiki. You don't need to be a Steward to check a SUL; the data are here. The WQ and ESWIKI accounts seem not to be the same person as the others. The ESWIKI account is not blocked, so the problem is not that WP Crum375 objects to others using his name. My understanding is that since our Crum375 has made significant contributions, including creating articles, it would violate GFDL to rename him. What is the worst that can be said of him? He may have deliberately used the name of an account elsewhere, and then made good contributions here. Can that possibly be regarded as harassment in any dictionary meaning of the word? Is it not harassment to block him without warning and against WQ policy? If WP Crum375 was so worried about protecting his name, why did he wait until 1 June to create a SUL? He could easily have done it in March, before our Crum375 was created, as Lar and many other people did.--Yehudi 07:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46 edits is "significant contributions"? And Crum375 shouldn't be allowed to have a unified account, because he waited all of 3 months after the option was introduced before attempting to make use of it? And it's not "harassment" to deliberately take the username of an editor on another wiki, thereby precluding him from unifying his accounts? Your arguments stretch credulity. Jayjg 22:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created an SUL when it was available to Stewards only. It was gradually turned on to wider and wider circles of folk. I think June was when any admin could do it. I may be misremembering the dates, but not everyone sees SUL as urgent. They're wrong, in my view, but 1 June is not completely unreasonable. If you don't want to be impersonated and you haven't SULed yet you really really should. ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Your understanding of GFDL is, I believe wrong, because if it was correct, we could never usurp any account ever. We stewards usurp accounts all the time on other wikis where there are no 'crats (and I've done it on wikis where I am a 'crat). Their contributions, their block log (after a bugfix, although not initally), everything, move with them. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Lar, your understanding on SUL is wrong. It was already open for any sysop in April; that was why I SULed my scattering accounts and I knew it from w:WP:SIGNPOST.--Aphaia 14:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to consider what is best for WQ and the project as a whole. Whatever our Crum375's motives, he has made some small improvement to WQ and I can't see he has done any harm. If we block him, he can't carry on with his work. Even in the wider Wikimedia context, I can't see that any annoyance to the other Crum375 outweighs this. He is tossing round words like "harassment" and "malicious"; that could be taken as harassment of our Crum375. Incidentally, WP Crum375 has not edited since 11 July (apart from edits to his talk page related to this).--Cato 09:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadaphaia was almost certainly no coincidence. (if asked directly, I would have force renamed it to something else and then locked/hidden the SUL name if possible... I still would, if I was asked... if it was on a wiki where it would not be out of place to do so... it appears both the wikis where this userid exists have 'crats) Nor is this local Crum375 a coincidence, let's not kid ourselves on that, the name is way too odd to be a random choice, it was picked with foreknowledge, to a 99.99% probability, at least... (Assume good faith, yes, but don't be a damnfool about it) I suppose it's not reasonable to expect every user to check their account before they register, yes. But this is now after registration. Note that now that we have SUL, SUL accounts are protected, so impersonation is now harder. GO SUL YOURSELF if you have not yet done so, I urge everyone reading this!!!!
I don't support the "real" Crum375's approach of asking for action without contacting the local Crum375, without coming here first and asking for a rename, in general, without working with the local community, but instead giving the appearance of throwing weight around, of using connections elsewhere to work their will on a smaller wiki.... that sort of thing is wrong, and you are correct to resist it. So, I don't support the initial indefinite block without any discussion, but now that it's been identified to the community, in my view, the correct thing for the community to do is to ask this local "Crum375" account, now that their point presumably has been made, to willingly cede the account and be renamed. Since all contributions will be moved to the new name, there is no GFDL issue. Comments made in discussions might need fixing but there are bots for that sort of thing. This is your community, but in my view that's the polite thing to do. Even for people that act in less than collegial ways to try to get their way here, as the global Crum375 has done (this is not the first time that sort of thing has happened for that global user, IMHO). Has anyone actually asked the local account yet? Leaving unblocked and renaming does NOT lose the potential contributions. Unless the local account stops contributing because you disallow it impersonating another user. In which case, were they a good faith contributor in the first place? ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lar I asked for help already. Two years ago. Two people would have liked for help but the community rejected. That is ENWP. I won't reply you here anymore and don't want to be preached what is civility; from enwiki admin whose community happily retains User:Deadaphia for the sake of AGF. Your ENWP community rejected my complaint for the sake of ENWP AGF. But now you demand me to obtain AGF and order me to use common sense, block the account etc, etc. It is simply a double-standard. Shame on you, I would like to say all ENWP people except two gentle people who tried then to help me. --Aphaia 14:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once more, with more specifics… I have already instructed w:User:Crum375 how to proceed. If he posts his request as I gave him and as has been described by several folks above, this will give justification for a bureaucrat to request our current User:Crum375 kindly request a name change so that WP's Crum375 can complete his SUL here. Without that request, 2 of the 3 bureaucrats have implicitly or explicitly chosen not to pursue this action, despite the likelihood that WQ's "Crum375" was not chosen randomly. (Kalki hasn't weighed in, but he's got enough on his hands anyway.) No one else here or in Wikimedia should presume to make this decision for them, since we have an established WQ:USURP and have selected them to implement it. The ball is in w:User:Crum375's court.
If the rest of us would like to talk to our current Crum375 about this, we can do this at any time. We can smooth the road for the transition, or ask what their intentions are, or anything else we might be curious about. Please bear in mind that what usually happens when one interacts with a sleeping troll is at least initially indistinguishable from a genuinely good-faith editor. (Take at look at the discussion at w:User talk:Deadaphaia.) After all, that's the point of doing good-editing impersonations — to be indistinguishable. But whether this person is truly good-faith or a troll waiting to strike, the best course to pursue is to allow Crum375 to usurp his long-established, cross-project name on Wikiquote. This avoids making any accusations and is likely to lead to the desired result (either because a good newbie agrees, or a troll shows his true colors). Of course, the more I have to keep pointing this stuff out here, the more we document for trolls how to screw with us successfully. So could we please stop arguing with each other and let the processes already in place move forward? The place to apply pressure now is w:User:Crum375, who took the initial, unwise shortcut, however well-intended, and who is currently just sitting back and letting us argue about it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I put a note on our Crum375's talk. For me it is enough as said. Obviously this situation is confusable. I don't think he in a bad faith even if he rejects the request for being usurped. (See how many Britty are on the Wikimedia project, and I think one of them were apparently in malice, but most not probably). On the other hand, if he even denies my proposal without giving any alternative, I would like to repeat, then it could be of malicious intent. --Aphaia 14:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)o[reply]
@Aphaia: I'll repeat my offer, do you want me to try to intercede on your behalf on en:wp? 2 years is a long time, perhaps now things would be viewed differently. If that ID were in place on a wiki with no crats I'd block it pretty darn quick. Please do not tar me as preaching to you, or being solely en:wp. I have powers there, yes, but I have more powers elsewhere, and further I'm a steward, so my overriding concern is all of WMF, not one project. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Aphaia 14:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it was not only 2 years ago. Sj submitted the request on my behalf again in 2007 and again rejected. See w:Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2006/Febraury.
And still the account is free; ENWP community decides not to rename an account without consent by the user but expect the other project does so and claim it is the common sense. Essjay said "if it is inappriate, block it" and NO ONE HAS EVER BLOCKED THAT ACCOUNT. Now you guys come to our project and blame we lack common sense, etc. I take it a shameful double standard. Or colonialism. You claim what you haven't given the other at your home. I would like the all ENWP users, who give us their advices to use our common sense, to sort their home first rather than to teach their common sense usage. --Aphaia 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems trivially obvious to me that the wikiquote Crum375 account was set up as a way of harassing the Crum375 who currently exists on 11 other wikis. The odds of someone randomly picking "Crum375" as a Wikipedia name seem infinitesimally low, and, having created one, it's an easy way to ensure that the real Crum375 cannot unify his accounts. I know the process of unifying my own accounts took several months and many, many e-mails, precisely because individuals set up impostor accounts on other wikis for LULs. I think we should be encouraging unified logins, and discouraging this kind of low-grade harassment. Jayjg 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



From WQ:CHU/U (which is a draft policy, but seems sound to me)

  • No usurpation is granted automatically unless the target account has caused only harm with malicious intent to the project. If you are convinced the target was created in bad faith, you are welcome to address your concern, but it is up to the local bureaucrats.
  • If your request for usurpation is not a clear case of impersonation, your request may be fulfilled under one of the following conditions:
1. the affected party agrees to rename.
2. the affected party did no significant edits for which their history should be retained to comply with GFDL and at least three weeks pass from your message to the affected party without response.

So the way forward seems clear. Crum should make a formal request for usurpation (until he does, "nothing" is the right thing to do) If and when he does

  • Ask the target if they're willing to be usurped. If not:
  • Decide if the target was created in bad faith. If you think it is, then usurp. If not, don't.

That's my view of what your policy says. Now, personally, I think the target was indeed created in bad faith, was indeed a clear case of impersonation. But that's not my call, it's the call of your crats. If you care what other wikis think you need to make a reasonable call, though. The above is my opinion only, of course. I demand/dictate/order nothing and no one. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was edit conflicted... this is what JeffQ is advocating as well. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good summary, thanks. As a bureaucrat of this project, I repeat my thought already placed on the above:
  • There is no factual data we determine that was a product of malice: it could be so, or it could be just coincidence. The former option may have a higher bid, but not crystal clear in my thought.
  • There is no formal request from anyone, from his own or on someone's behalf. No contact to the targeted user either. As a bureaucrat I therefore find no reason to execute an usurpation as of yet.
  • And it is up to Crum375. The further thing is not our business. Futhermore, EnWP Crum375 was already instructed by Jeff Q about that process. I think therefore we reached a consensus that an automatic usurpation wouldn't make on our User:Crum375 right now, with notifying the community, or at least some member, however would appreciate him to take some action: if so, this issue has finished for us already.
  • That said, I would love to see the thing in a right process, not just an editor's favorite without complying with our policy and process, not just two stewards did recently. --Aphaia 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused here. According to the English Wikipedia logs en-w Crum375 stopped editing a month ago with the exception of a few edits on his or her talk page related to this matter. Why should the wikiquote Crum be inconvenienced if the other Crum is leaving Wikipedia? Delilah 07:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked User:Lucia Bot for 24 hours since there is no information about its operator The link from that user page is led to an English Wikipedia article of a fictional character. Its mail option is in, so I yesterday wiki-mailed hopefully to the operator, to give consideration to follow our rules on Wikiquote:Bots, while it is mainly designed for flagged bots. I don't think it is appropriate to let someone unknown run his or her bot, even if its operation to date seems harmless. --Aphaia 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The operator is Beria, it's noted in the "Narnia" userbox. (Though it's a little confusing to figure out.) Cbrown1023 talk 19:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I found the link. I agree it is confusing, but not a little, greatly in my opinion. I'd like to ask the operator to make it much clearer. Otherwise, I personally prefer to keep it away from running. Also both user pages are not convincing he or she is capable to communicate in English: specially after they decided to run their bot, ignoring completely ethe mail from me to respect the community policy even to some extent. --Aphaia 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a mail from Beria, and going to unblock it. --Aphaia 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]