Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Miszatomic (removal)

Request withdrawn by nominator, no community support for removal at this time.-- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Miszatomic (talk · contributions)

Miszatomic (talk · contributions) is an admin on Wikiquote. Miszatomic has engaged in socking, trolling, vandalism, impersonating other users causing multiple globally locked accounts.

A bit of history:

Checkuser Confirmed sock accounts:

Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions) = globally locked account = reason given by Steward, Savh, was "Long-term abuse".
DanielTom6 (talk · contributions) = globally locked account = reason given by Steward, Tegel, was "Long-term abuse".
DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) = globally locked account = reason given by Steward, Tegel, was "Long-term abuse".
Gene96 (talk · contributions) = triple-voting at a Wikiquote Request for Adminship.
Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions) = triple-voting at a Wikiquote Request for Adminship.

Checkuser investigations:

Deleted contributions reveal more evidence and behavior:

Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/Jody_Fosteur =
- threatening an admin (not himself, not Miszatomic, but admin UDScott) with death: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" DIFF.
- Edit summary: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" DIFF
- Edit summary: "I request to be indefinitely blocked, and/or globally banned with talk page locked as well" DIFF
- Evidently comments to himself: "Mizatomic, or watever, PERMABLOCK ME BITCH I FUCKIN DARE YA" DIFF
DanielTom6 (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/DanielTom6 = impersonation. Self-explanatory. See DIFF.
DanielTom7 (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/DanielTom7 = impersonation. Self-explanatory. See DIFF.
Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions), and Special:DeletedContributions/Jimmy11234 = IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF.Added more evidence, above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restored some for visibility of diffs. Will update evidence links. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miszatomic blocked his own sock account with rationale: "intimidating behavior / harassment":

Miszatomic blocked his own sock account with rationale: "intimidating behavior / harassment". Please see block log for sock account "Jody Fosteur".

For all the above reasons, bringing here to have sysop tools removed from sockmaster account Miszatomic (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vote ends: 2015·02·05 (5 February 2015)

Remove

Remove, as nominator, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep. This is far too quick. If the evidence is accepted, Miszatomic made some mistakes. There was no allegation of abuse of tools, hence no emergency. There was no negotiation of dispute, no attempt to correct errors. I'm seeing way too much be done by a single user/administrator, including using enwiki to checkuser accounts with no enwiki activity. (SUL and autologin allows that.) I may change my vote depending on developments. Miszatomic has had no real opportunity to reflect and consider response and the way forward; further, Cirt has indef blocked him for a first offense, so he cannot participate here. --Abd (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Abd, you don't think blocking his own sock account for "intimidating behavior / harassment" is a misuse of the admin tools? -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And no, I most certainly did not block him for a "first offense". He's had plenty of other offenses and blocks by other admins with accounts Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions), DanielTom6 (talk · contributions), DanielTom7 (talk · contributions), Gene96 (talk · contributions), and Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions). Not a "first offense". Not by a long shot. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By misuse of the tools, I mean uses that actually cause significant harm to the wiki or to other users. Because he did cause disruption (not by use of tools) I may be persuaded that Miszatomic should resign and wait before requesting tools again, if that is ever appropriate. I see what he did as a sign of immaturity, not of propensity to harm. The good news about immaturity is that people can mature, sometimes quickly.

Now, Cirt, please back off and allow users to have their opinions without your debating them. And please unblock Miszatomic. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said in my original block that I'd defer to any other admins and asked any other admin to feel free to change my block. Can you please explain to me how prior blocks of Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions), DanielTom6 (talk · contributions), DanielTom7 (talk · contributions), Gene96 (talk · contributions), and Jimmy11234 (talk · contributions), somehow don't count as a "first offense" ??? -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually voted here during the Poetlister socking back in 2008, so not the first time an admin created socks on this wiki. As much as I would like a socking admin de-sysopped, I just cannot see why Misza should be because even though he socked, I do not see him vandalizing any articles or attacking any users with those accounts. I understand his frustration with that 'recurring' vandal but the action taken by him was a poor one. Since I cannot see any other reason for him to be desysopped, considering this was his first 'known' act of vandalism and the fact that he did not abuse his admin privileges (albeit block his own sock), I would support him keeping his admin rights as long as he promises to reveal the accounts of his other socks and promise to no longer create socks on this wiki..A small wiki like this with a recurring vandal problem needs all the good admins it can get..--Ste moc 02:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What about this? or this? Or triple-voting at Request for Adminship??? -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't think either can be classed as "vandalism" and the triple voting is the only thing that one can use against this editor and even that i find a bit amusing..had he abused or attacked Kalki during the RfA with those accounts, i would have fully supported his rights removal but he did no such thing..this wiki lacks good admins and he was trying to ensure another user who is probably the most experienced user on this site becomes one too..I find that courageous (though foolish) and I honestly feel he doesn't deserve to be de-sysopped or worst, locked from this website just because he was trying to help the wiki..--Ste moc 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Anyone who creates sock accounts to manipulate a vote/discussion is tacitly admitting that they are not confident enough in their preferred outcome to work toward it honestly. They don't necessarily realise that, though: it begins as an innocent attempt to right perceived wrongs, and only later progresses to an intentional campaign of disruption. The latter stage is a natural consequence because any cutting of moral corners is a slippery slope, much like tipping over one domino at the beginning of a row; however, judging by this comment I'm inclined to assume Miszatomic is in the earlier stages. (And do feel free to challenge anything I say because, as I say below, I'm not qualified to express an opinion.) Ekips39 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cirt, regarding the "new" evidence, Misza only confirmed to using the Jimmy and Gene accounts, an enwiki CU confirmed that Misza is Jody and regarding this edit and quote "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" it could very well mean Misza tried to log into that user's account using that password and because he did, his IP was logged as belonging to Jody...don't you think thats possible?.. The jody account made no edits on enwiki so I won't take the word of a CU there when its blatantly clear that the vandal himself revealed his password and there is a 50% that someone else tried to login to that account using that password and another 50% chance that that user was Misza...Again, until Misza confirms his other socks, I personally won't take your "proof" lightly..as the saying goes, 2 sides of a story, we have your side, waiting on Misza's..--Ste moc 04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Stemoc, I think maybe you're pretty confused here. Zarbon (talk · contributions) is another different editor. In the past there have been multiple socks attempting to impersonate Zarbon. So that reference used by Miszatomic (talk · contributions) and his sock his just trolling vandalism, essentially. And the Checkuser confirmation is pretty much the best you can get that states the accounts are the same person. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are the confused one, I'm aware of Zabron , whoever that vandal is (Jody), has been attacking Zabron for years now and to make his life simpler, uses his name as the password for his "sock" accounts (shame we can't CU via passwords) and its possible Misza tried to log into the vandals account which would register in the CU log...the vandal was there for a few hours before Misza banned him for good, UDScott actually only added a 1 week ban (for reasons unknown).. We should not speculate and await Misza's take on this...--Ste moc 05:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        DanielTom6 and DanielTom7 both say the same thing about their passwords being zarbon. I agree that Cirt is confused: as I said before, since the password was (apparently) given away it is eminently possible that Misza logged into those accounts. That doesn't explain the "faggot" diff, though, since that was from a different account. We'd have to ask checkusers which IPs the edits were made from relative to which accounts, I guess. Ekips39 (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: It is quite possible that Miszatomic (talk · contributions) = is and always was the same user as all the troll accounts by User:Wiki-star, rather than "imitating" them, they could all be one and the same. Just one of their socks happened to make it to admin with account Miszatomic (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Slanderous accusation with zero evidence. First, it is completely implausible. Second, checkuser didn't connect the accounts. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Evidence = threatening an admin (not himself, not Miszatomic, but admin UDScott) with death: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" and Edit summary: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" DIFF and IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Those are the words of the vandal, not Miszatomic. Notice: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it." The vandal basically admitted that Miszatomic logged in into his account, and that's why the CU tool mistook the two. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know that Miszatomic was using socks, he's acknowledged it. Cirt might never dream of using a sock. But many users have, over the years. They are not necessarily indeffed. Sometimes nothing is done. What I'm looking for, here, is a minimally disruptive response. I'm requesting that Cirt back off and let the smoke clear. There is a development. --Abd (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Miszatomic is an active contributor to the Wikiprojects for the past 3 years, making over 17.000 constructive edits, mainly Wikiquote, Wikipedia amd Wikisource. He is an administrator here for 10 months, and has been fighting vandalism on a daily base for 6 months making over 1000 block and deletion actions. This should give him some credit.

Now it has become rather clear, that Miszatomic has logged-on to some (blocked) vandalism accounts to check if they belong together. Now if I am not mistaken, he sequentially has used two other accounts to add two extra votes in the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) ([1] [2]). These accounts were longer active, but were not used for any vandalism (until the extra voting). Now the extra voting is a serious offense, and a block for one week for a first offense might be an appropriate punishment.

Now AGF Miszatomic logging on to some (blocked) vandalism accounts in combination with the sock puppetry voting, has lead to a tremendous amount of cross wiki confusion. This might have been prevented if taking into account, that Miszatomic is an active contributor to the Wikiprojects for the past 3 years. I hope my vote of confidence here will encourage Miszatomic to continue to contribute to Wikiprojects. -- Mdd (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Stemoc and Mdd. Miszatomic has done great work here quickly blocking vandals, and protecting Wikiquote from harm, and I hope he will be able to continue this work. Much of the "evidence" presented in this page is wrong and misleading. Miszatomic's only serious offense has been !voting with different accounts in a RfA, but even this was done in the hopes that he would get more help from new admins to deal with vandals. It was wrong, but Miszatomic acknowledged this and promised to not do it again, and I believe him. I have no doubt that WQ will stay safer and more protected from vandal attacks if he remains an admin. So he has my vote of confidence too. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment: Per advice by Abd, above, I'll respectfully back off and allow users to have their opinions without my debating them. As I've stated previously, I invite other admins to look over my block of Miszatomic (talk · contributions) and state that I've got no problems with any other admin changing the block per their judgment. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not qualified to !vote here as I only have 10 edits, but I believe a short block (if anything) would be quite enough. If temporary desysopping were a thing it might also be useful. Such permanent remedies, especially with little to no warning, are almost always too harsh IMHO. Ekips39 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added more evidence, above. Please see DIFF. Abd, Stemoc, Ekips39, perhaps this may change your opinions. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a firm opinion and the more evidence I see the less of an opinion I have. However, the "whoever keeps logging into my account" suggests that Miszatomic might have logged into it because the password was given away; I'm not sure why this would be done but I've seen it happen before. OTOH, if those accounts really do belong to Miszatomic, I guess it's immaturity, or possibly a shared IP. I still think limiting him to one account should be fine, unless there's evidence suggesting his use of the admin tools is causing problems. Ekips39 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per suggestion from Abd, I've restored some of the deleted contribs by the sock accounts, and also courtesy blanked a few pages. They should now be visible to non-admins. -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt, appreciated. --Abd (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome, Abd, thank you, for the wise suggestion to make the evidence diff links visible to non-admins, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Unfortunately, I have way too much experience with this ****. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To what are you referring? -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When a writer uses **** instead of writing a word, it indicates that he does not want to explicitly say what he is referring to. However, the **** is desysop process, which is a painful thing, for me, even when I've filed it against a sysop. There is no joy in it. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear User:UDScott's thoughts on the matter, based on the communication directed to him by "Jody Fosteur". BD2412 T 04:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought myself. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If "Jody Fosteur" really is Miszatomic's sock, then it did behave badly, which was his excuse to then block it himself. But anyone familiar with the troll he was imitating knows he does make death threats, so it's not surprising that Miszatomic would also copy this (although it shows very poor judgment on his part). ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I wonder why the accused is not able to contribute to their own defence. Miszatomic is blocked and unable to comment sDrewth 11:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Miszatomic (talk · contributions) is free to comment on his talk page, and then users may post those comments, here. That is standard practice on wikis when a user is blocked and being discussed. I've already notified him of this discussion on his talk page. So far he hasn't yet abused the privilege to edit his own user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is quite possible that Miszatomic (talk · contributions) = is and always was the same user as all the troll accounts by User:Wiki-star, rather than "imitating" them, they could all be one and the same. Just one of their socks happened to make it to admin with account Miszatomic (talk · contributions). -- Cirt (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Slanderous accusation with zero evidence. First, it is completely implausible. Second, checkuser didn't connect the accounts. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Evidence = threatening an admin (not himself, not Miszatomic, but admin UDScott) with death: "U SON OF A BITCH U BETTER UNBLOCK ME OR ELSE U AND UR LOVED 1S WILL FACE A PAINFUL DEATH!" and Edit summary: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it. My password is zarbon, ok guys?! AAAHHH!!!" DIFF and IP user talk page: created page with "faggot" DIFF. -- Cirt (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are the words of the vandal, not Miszatomic. Notice: "whoever keeps logging into my account, PLEASE dont stop doing it." The vandal basically admitted that Miszatomic logged in into his account, and that's why the CU tool mistook the two. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to hear what Miszatomic has to say before commenting further or !voting. If indeed the three socks that were globally locked are his, it would be very concerning, but I think I need to hear his side of the tale before !voting either keep or remove. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 13:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been away for a bit, so forgive me for coming late to this conversation. My first thought was amusement and a bit of sadness should these accusations prove true. My suspicion if they do prove to be founded are that the socking was done in an attempt to build a reputation as a strong vandal fighter (which I believe had occurred, as often Miszatomic was one of the few admins available during the recent frequent bouts with vandals). As for the comments directed at me, I did not take personal offense, as I believe admins are subject to such threats from time to time (and I believe it is part of the role to be a bit thick-skinned and remain level headed) - but any threats whether they rise to the level of promising harm or death are subject to blocking, as was done. For now, I will reserve judgment as I try to sort through the accusations (and await any word from the accused), but should they prove to be true, I would likely vote to remove the offender from the admin team (hence my sadness, as we need all the help we can get). More thoughts to come... ~ UDScott (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "My password is zarbon"

The fact that a vandal makes a claim in an edit summary does not mean that the claim is true. It seems more likely to me that the edit summary was a lie calculated to provoke, rather than that an otherwise innocent admin would log into an account other than his own and make disruptive edits from that account. BD2412 T 15:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but it could be true. Keep in mind, the vandal in question created many (hundreds of) accounts, so giving away the password to a few of them would not be a problem to him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly interesting. See [3]. If this is true, it could explain the Wikipedia checkuser information. See User:Abd/Miszatomic. Miszatomic has acknowledged the triple voting, but not the other socks. The connection with the other users, such as Jodie Fosteur, was made, apparently, on Wikipedia, based on autologin information, because Jodie Fosteur had no edits there. If so, Miszatomic was in over his head, and did not realize the possible consequences of logging in to a vandal account (such as autologin on Wikipedia, and checkuser). If the vandal is sophisticated, that was a setup. Frankly, I thought of trying to log in as well. After all, what would be the harm of just logging in? And immediately recoiled, very, very bad idea. But I have many years of experience with this. I could still make a mistake.

Right now, this should all slow down. I encourage the 'crats to communicate with Miszatomic, to decide if he should resign the tools. This RfA removal request is a symptom of a long-term rift in the community, and we need to be moving in a different direction, so that the Wikiquote community is a safe place to work, and, yes, to occasionally make mistakes. I ask Cirt to continue to join with me and everyone else here, to that end. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think Misza logged into the Jody Fosteur account and made this edit which would register his IP in the CU log under Jody's account..if you are wondering how he knew the password, as i said before, this troll seems to use the same password and probably a few days or weeks earlier, he may have outed his password and Misza remembered what this troll uses as a password..the fact is that Misza has ONLY claimed 2 accounts in Gene and Jimmy and yet Cirt is trying to pin other accounts which everyone here knows belongs to that troll, Wiki-star and he is quite insulting. First he tried to tag Kalki as socking on his own RfA and when he was proven wrong, he started pointing fingers at another admin..this is pathetic, even for an admin..--Ste moc 01:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a basic confusion here. We have no checkuser data from Wikiquote connecting Jodie Fosteur to Miszatomic. The connection was made on en.wikipedia. Wikipedia checkusers do not have access to the edit data here. At this point, I'm not revealing everything I know or suspect, because I want Miszatomic to simply tell the truth, I previously asked him what edits he made, if any, with the vandal accounts. If there is a need, we can ask for stewards to run checkuser on Wikiquote edits. I don't want to waste steward time if it's not necessary. At this point, we need to stop talking about Cirt. He's not stirring the pot any more. Later, if needed, all of this can be reviewed. Maybe it will not be needed.

But one claim should be dumped, immediately. Cirt did not "point fingers" at Miszatomic as described. He was looking for the sock master of the two vote-stacking socks. By the time it was revealed, I think there were at least two users who suspected it was Miszatomic, I was one of them. But I certainly did not know. Cirt did not file a checkuser request on Miszatomic on en.wiki. He filed on the two suspicious socks, and he filed before it was known that those were Miszatomic, and before anyone particularly suspected Miszatomic. He did not mention Miszatomic. It was a checkuser who revealed the name of with regard to the vandal socks. I've seen Cirt as overzealous, and I'm not the only one, but he also didn't attack this admin. He did act swiftly once he knew, too swiftly, my opinion. But he stopped. It's now for the community to sort. --Abd (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he did stop but everything leading up to this was very insulting to Miszatomic and not just here, but on meta and enwiki even though a steward told him to stop with his speculations as it was only making things worse...think of this from Misza's point of view, being called a long term vandal and then being blocked for calling a vandal something as minute as a "faggot" and not even being allowed to come here and fight his de-adminship request..Personally, I would request he be unblocked so that he can come here and answer every question instead of being forced to answer everything from his talkpage...especially when his English isn't that good so he won't be able to fully answer everything on his own talkpage..one of the very flawed policies of WikiMedia is that everyone is a sock/vandal until proven innocent..isn't thats what happening here?.. I chose not to be part of the Witch hunt when news of a known editor socking on Kalki's RfA was released by a steward but now i'm here to ensure that an innocent person does not get burned for a crime they did not commit..--Ste moc 04:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible. What's more, it could be that Miszatomic might have been caught by CU just for having logged in into those accounts(!), without actually having made any edits with them. (Abd already asked him about this.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a few Stewards (who use CU tools everyday) on IRC and they said that the user needed to have had made an edit with that account to get logged or at the very best send an email with that account....but seeing that edit i mentioned above, I assume that was made by Misza and then Wikistar regained control of the account and reverted it. I see the Fosteur account made 16 edits, I only see 13 edits...I wonder if an admin can confer the 'deleted' 3 edits were made before the edit mentioned above?--Ste moc 02:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it easy for checkusers to confirm if the edits in question were made by the vandal, or if they really came from Miszatomic's IP (or from both)? Doesn't the CU tool match each edit for each IP? (Maybe not.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CU has information on every logged action. It's not just IP, it is also the user agent string. See [4]. I think it will display your user agent string. You can see what data is there. This can be spoofed. Russavia has taunted checkusers with messages in his user agent string. --Abd (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask this before but CU also allows them information regarding their browsers, if a CU/Steward can confirm that edits from the Jody account were made by 2 different browsers (or the same browser but different versions) one of which matches with Misza's browser then we can safely say that 2 different users logged into that account. I know its easy to spoof this but I doubt Wiki-star is smart enough to know that, he kept using the same password for his accounts :/ ..This could clear Misza once and for all..i.e as creating that account..--Ste moc 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is, yes, if what Misza did was just log into that account and make an edit or two, this could *easily* be distinguished from the vandal's edits, unless he is extraordinarily unlucky. I won't go into all the gory details. --Abd (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

I have examined some of the history here with User:Abd/Miszatomic. Any user is welcome to comment on the Talk page there. Editing the investigation page to correct errors is also welcome. Changing opinions is not welcome. However, I will allow, on that page, addition of balancing opinion, if brief. If it is long, I will move it to the Talk page with a link. I hope this is useful. I will separately comment about what I've found. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steward comment

At this point of time it is interesting to see the commentary and accusations made above, and made with tenuous and circumstantial evidence. I would also like to say that the comments that have been made by Cirt on the blocking statements would appear to be factually wrong, and if wrong, then possibly considered slanderous. I am terribly disappointed with the GUILTY verdict, the hanging, then the trial in that order. No natural justice, an absolute abomination and one person seems to be acting as prosecutor and judge without suitable and verifiable evidence, just assumptions. A one touch data point is not sufficient for the string of assumptions and accusations, especially when the person has no ability to respond.

To note I have no opinion on the de-admin process, just the assumptions that have been presented as facts. sDrewth 14:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why they are factually wrong? Please understand, I was acting on evidence confirmed by multiple different Checkusers. Please be more specific, what do you feel is factually wrong, Billinghurst? -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- multiple Checkuser investigations by different Checkusers showed abuse of multiple accounts: Checkuser results, at the time, that were available = by Billinghurst and by Tiptoety, and also by Elockid. (That's three different data analyses.) Each of the three showed abuse of multiple accounts. I wasn't the only admin that blocked the user indef. That was also done on en.wikipedia for similar site policy violations here. -- Cirt (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said all along Cirt. Your claims were factually wrong. They were based on circumstantial evidence, and have now been shown to be wrong. That some of us don't get wrapped up in hype, and take our time to patiently collect the data and seek other input and review is beneficial. That there was no urgency, and others got it wrong in their interpretation and have commented as such. Either way that does not change the case that you have made errors in fact in your block. When you have rescinded the block, please would local admins remove the blocking reason with a suitable comment of "error in fact deleted". sDrewth 09:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary. I clearly say it in my opening statement Cirt. ... "your blocking statements are wrong". I also challenge that anyone but you has directly said that the user Miszatomic placed the comments from that IP address. It is factually wrong; it demeans the character of the blocked person that it was used, and it is insulting that it remains there. sDrewth 10:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Billinghurst for letting us know to be careful about the allegations made. I suspect that Miszatomic is in shock; he is responding on his Talk page, slowly. Being an active user who is suddenly, without warning, blocked is, to say the least, disconcerting.

I have acted to encourage the "one person" to back off. There is no emergency here. Miszatomic is blocked as I write this, and the community is aware of the situation, mostly it is waiting for more clarity from Miszatomic, who has not yet formally requested unblock. The block was within administrative discretion, even if perhaps hasty and over-excited, as with the filing here and debate on this extending across the wiki. Cirt has agreed to back off, so I also suggest that people take the focus off of Cirt. If he erred, it is easily fixed. There is a process and we are following it.

The block on en.wikipedia is strange. There was no en.wiki disruption shown to be by Miszatomic, so it is irrelevant here (what was possibly disruptive was very minor and old). There are a number of issues, and they get mixed. Rather than addressing them here, at this point, I will work on the evidence page, and I invite participation in that, under my moderation: User:Abd/Miszatomic. (Anyone may do this in their user space, if civility and neutrality guidelines are followed, and that page has no official status unless adopted by the community. Comment is also welcome on the attached Talk page).

My position, with Billinghurst, is that we should not reverse the proper sequence. We need information ("evidence") first, and then claims or charges may be made, and remedies proposed and decided. Miszatomic appears to have been a positive and helpful administrator here, and that should not be forgotten. He also made some serious mistakes. So, when we have a reasonable understanding of the facts, when Miszatomic has had time to recover from the shock of being an active user who is then abruptly blocked, we may create the future and move on. --Abd (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I still note that this person is blocked and unable to comment upon this discussion about the rights that they hold. Do I need to remention the basic concept of a fair and reasonable process? It is not hard people. What you do afterwards that is a consensus of the community is your business. Show me the evidence that a block is required, and should be in place to stop the blocked user being able to comment in general, and specifically on their de-adminship proceedings. sDrewth 09:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Billinghurst, to the work you and other checkusers did, Miszatomic is no longer under a cloud of accusation over the vandal socking. Miszatomic has been unblocked by Cirt, the original block being reduced to a week for the known and acknowledged socking, and then lifted for AGF. The community will review this, and Cirt may as well. --Abd (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"one more point. Miszatomic was also unblocked on Wikipedia, the major reason being that his socking here was not disruption of Wikipedia, he did have more than one account there, but had not been disruptive with them. --Abd (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology after claimed password disclosure of Jody Fosteur

17:38, 30 November 2014 = Account DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) creates userpage, claims his password is "zarbon".
21:40, 15 January 2015 = UDScott (talk · contributions) blocks Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions) account for one-week for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment", he previously blocked same account as "Vandalism only account" = therefore there was no need for any other admin to log into this account to "check if it was vandalism" = that logic makes zero sense.
14:06, 16 January 2015 = Jody Fosteur account claims its password is "zarbon".
15:57, 16 January 2015 = Jody Fosteur states: "I request to be indefinitely blocked, and/or globally banned with talk page locked as well "
15:59, 16 January 2015 = Jody Fosteur re-adds this back to its user talk page.
16:02, 16 January 2015 = Miszatomic (talk · contributions) blocks Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions) indef, with rationale, "Intimidating behaviour/harassment".
16:38, 29 January 2015 = Miszatomic claims that it was not the Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions) account but the DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) account that gave away: DanielTom7 was the one who gave away the password. ~ Miszatomic

-- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I remember there was more than one account (not just "Jody Fosteur") giving away the password, claiming it was "Zarbon". Given that we don't have local checkuser, it could make sense for Miszatomic to try to login into the accounts with that password, because if the login were successful, it would confirm that the accounts belonged to the vandal. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Community, re above: There is no evidence presented of any other account giving away their passwords. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: [5] ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to log into a vandal account other than being the vandal itself. Not sure what new information would be gained. The account Jody Fosteur had already been blocked by another admin as Vandalism only account, no other evidence was needed. That seems like a misnomer here. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Miszatomic, unfortunately we are asked to believe the words of vandal accounts Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions) and DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've changed the evidence above, per comment by Pmlineditor, below. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies with explanations by Miszatomic

Miszatomic has already admitted to socking with accounts Gene96 and Jimmy11234. This was also confirmed by three Checkusers.
Miszatomic claims it was DanielTom7 (talk · contributions), and not Jody Fosteur (talk · contributions), that gave away a password. DanielTom7 diff
Miszatomic claims he needed to log into a vandal account Jody Fosteur in order to "check if it was vandalism" = but the account at that time was already blocked one-week by UDScott, there was no need to log into the vandal account for any reason whatsoever.
Jody Fosteur account claims someone had already been logging into its account, multiple times, diff, but this was before it had revealed its claimed password of "zarbon", anywhere on Wikiquote.
Miszatomic claims "I did not vandalize any pages as the vandal log in I only blanked their user page and talk pages that they created." However, there is zero evidence that at any time any of the accounts Jody Fosteur, DanielTom6, or DanielTom7, ever blanked their user page or talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence: that I blanked half the page here Jody Fosteur [6] after the vandal himself made the threat Miszatomic (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied this response by Miszatomic from his talk page. (The only part he didn't blank was UDScott's warning.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the diff where DanielTom7 claims that the password of the account(s?) is 'zarbon' as it might be relevant. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 19:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good finding. So apparently Miszatomic told the truth [7]. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pmlineditor, if we assume that the account DanielTom7 (talk · contributions) is telling the truth. -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main conflicting story lines here:

Miszatomic created the three vandal socks in question. If so, nothing any of them have said can be trusted. Anyone could verify the password, unless the vandal has changed it; my suggestion is don't. It would prove nothing, either way.
Miszatomic did not create the accounts. Misza has stated he got the password from Daniel7. That was alleged above as a "contradiction," with "zero evidence." Cirt changed that, after there was response to it.[8]

I cannot, at this time, be certain which of these possibilities is true. It is possible to find out, but there is a reason why Billinghurst delayed revealing the name of the "triple voter." It was to give Misza an opportunity to acknowledge the truth himself, instead of being "outed." Misza was slow to respond, another error. He knew.

We can be like that when we are afraid, it's a kind of paralysis.

If we find the second story to be confirmed (there is no proof either way shown here, yet), then there are still issues, but quite different, showing error but not serious harm, in itself.

I am encouraging Misza to simply tell the truth, whether it looks good or not. To pursue that, I hope that people will hold assumptions of good faith, and not condemn anyone. Behavior that violates policy will be addressed, but, for wiki welfare, the goal should always be protection of the wiki, for the future, not punishment for sins of the past. Misza is, I'm sure, getting the message that what he did wasn't acceptable. I'm waiting for him to clearly express this, if he doesn't, I cannot predict if he will be unblocked. It looks to me like admins are (properly) waiting for clarity from him. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with below) Cirt is having difficulty keeping his hands off this page. (yesterday) What actually happened is being developed, and, if I may speak for the community, we prefer that Miszatomic acknowledge what he did, and what he did not do, clearly, before proceeding to handle consequences. It's a mark of respect for all the work he has done for this wiki. That process is going slowly, but more and more is coming out. In the end, either Miszatomic will make it unnecessary, or there may be another checkuser request, to go over what happened here. The enwiki evidence was based on evidence available on enwiki, which could be misleading. Miszatomic is making statements which would be, generally verifiable.

Reviewing what Cirt added above, I have spent several days looking at this matter, gathering evidence, and attempting to calm the waters. On each point:

Confirmation by checkusers is not relevant now, since Miszatomic acknowledged being the users. No "discrepancy."
Miszatomic stated something from memory that may have been incorrect and that possibly is irrelevant. "zero evidence" is not a discrepancy.
No "need" was claimed. Intention was claimed, for a foolish action. Miszatomic was confused. (Mostly likely, I'd think, curiosity, verify the password was real, possibly to check watchlists? Bad Idea, but understandable.) No discrepancy.
If Miszatomic was not the originator of "Jody Fosteur," what the Jody Fosteur account earlier claimed is not relevant. No discrepancy.
Miszatomic has replied on this point of blanking. Again, "zero evidence" is not a discrepancy.

Cirt is exercised about this, and that affects his balance. Miszatomic's "explanations" are ultimately verifiable, if we need that, and I've been urging Miszatomic to simply tell the truth and the whole truth, and having someone go after every statement, trying to make it wrong, can damage that.

I assume that before we are done here, we will know what happened, even if not every detail. We don't need prosecution, on this page, at this point. I've encouraged Cirt to help develop User:Abd/Miszatomic, which is incomplete and ragged. I will moderate that, the page will become usable as a neutral reference, my goal (and may be moved to a subpage here when it is ready). --Abd (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Miszatomic claims to have logged into multiple other vandal accounts, somehow: DIFF. This is quite inappropriate behavior to log into anyone else's account, especially a vandal's. If the claims are true. -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not that inappropriate, if his goal was simply to confirm that those accounts were socks belonging to the troll-vandal, and to then block them, as he did. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to community: I've seen zero compelling evidence or explanation how it's appropriate or sanctioned by site policies for one user to log into another user's account. Ever. Especially a vandal account that has a history of socking. And now we have Miszatomic claiming to have logged into multiple different vandal accounts DIFF. That is inherently problematic, in and of itself. -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Misza has now said, what Cirt links to, is consistent with what he wrote before, just more specific. I have written, to Misza, that "technically," he violated the TOS by editing with the account. That would be the problem, not log-in as such. I am unaware, however, of any site policy on logging-in.

If Misza acknowledges what he did, almost no matter what it was, the community will forgive it or not, and it's not up to Cirt or me or DanielTom or any individual. I've asked Cirt to stop the prosecution, to stop being the one who points out what was bad or against policy. He's agreed. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Cirt, can you tell me how many Checkusers this wiki has?, well the answer is 0..as mentioned earlier, trying to log into an account or successfully logging in does not register in the CU log and since this wiki has no CU and this recurring vandal on this wiki is nearly always able to make more than 20 edits before he gets blocked, makes you wonder if there is an easier way to find them before they do strike. Misza's tactics were foolish but it worked and going over to meta to get the stewards to CU every account may indeed be their waste of time. I remember when this wiki had CU and why they were removed...Its like Cirt making up new excuses just to ensure Misza remains banned even though he actually did nothing wrong..In smaller wikis (which is what ENWQ is), you do everything to cull the vandalism problem, unlike bigger wikis where they have a large groups of CU's and/or Arbitrators to deal with the mess..Misza has already confirmed his socks, neither of which were used for vandalism and yet both are blocked and locked because of your insistence, and he has also confirmed his innocence by providing facts to what i figured a while ago. He was not "hacking" into accounts, he was using a method of checking for socks and sleeper accounts which obviously is a poor choice but in a small wiki like this, is there another way?..look at the AeroSoftGum18/Wiki-star vandal, he managed to irritate everyone yesterday with his vandalism but none of the "Active" admins on this wiki did anything about it...if this wiki needs an admin like Misza who is willing to take risks to get trolls like him banned, then removing his right will truly be the most foolish thing this community can do..--Ste moc 01:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc, please do not ask Cirt questions here, and please do not use this forum to criticize him. That will simply encourage him to respond here. Cirt became over-involved, so please let him disengage.

Your post contains errors or misunderstandings. Yes, this wiki does not have dedicated checkusers. Hence checkuser on this wiki will be done upon granted request of stewards on meta. Misza is not banned, only blocked. No user can be banned by a single administrator.

My understanding is that login registers on login wiki, which is visible to stewards, not local checkusers. Misza has confirmed the two votestacking socks. He has not acknowledged the vandal socks, and he was identified on Wikipedia as being Jodie Fosteur and Daniel6. So that is being investigated, a steward is making inquiries of Miszatomic, and so am I. At this point, I know, and I assume, the steward knows more than we are revealing, because we want Miszatomic to come forward voluntarily. That does not mean that I know if he was the vandal puppet master. I just know evidence or analysis that I have not yet documented.

As to an alleged shortage of administrators on this wiki, sometimes delay can be irritating, but I'm finding reasonably rapid response for a small wiki. Ordinary users can help a lot. It's easy for an admin to push a block or delete button, the hard part is finding the button to push. So for users to develop standing here, such that their requests or actions are reasonably trusted, can be more important than having more administrators.

We cannot put Miszatomic back to work until:

... He requests unblock. I've advised that he not request it until he's had time to carefully respond to open issues. But he could request it at any time. Cirt has already agreed that any admin may unblock, so Cirt is not an obstacle.
... He's unblocked. He could, technically, unblock himself. He would be emergency desyopped if he did, that is why, since he is fairly new, I immediately warned him about that.
If he is unblocked, it will be up to him if he wants to contest desysop. It's his right to do so. I would request that the clock be set back to give him the full period. However, he may also choose to resign. That would be "under a cloud," and to become a sysop again, he would need to reapply. Until I know what actually happened, I would not presume to advise him further.

For the future, if anyone wants to use the "vandal-fighting* technique described, it's pretty simple: disclose it to a 'crat, by email, get permission or at least don't do it on your own. This may all be moot, realize, if it turns out that Miszatomic did not merely make one vandal edit, he made them all. I don't know, I've asked him about Jodie Fosteur (which is the only important one). And then if it's necessary, we will ask for checkuser to confirm what we are told. The community here is saddened by what has happened, and I know that many users are ready to support Miszatomic and give him the full benefit of the doubt. I think he needs to come clean, if he has not already. If he says, that's it, it was that one harmless blanking edit and some log-ins, then I'm fully willing to invest the time to validate and verify and advocate for him, and I think that a steward will as well. Miszatomic served this wiki for almost a year; regardless of what happens, administrators deserve appreciation for what they do; too often, they become defined by their errors.

I'll go further. If Misza says, "Yes, I created Jodie Fosteur," I would still highly recommend he be unblocked under reasonable assurances, and I'd even consider continuing to support his adminship. It would depend on whether or not he can inspire confidence that the disruption would not repeat. In the end, it's the community, I'm just one voice. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A user that has been wrongfully blocked should NOT have to request unblock and if you actually followed all of Cirt's comments on enwiki and meta, you would be saying the same thing. He now seesm to have a vendetta against Misza and honestly I might be willing to start a De-adminship against him after this is all over. He has maligned and disrespectfully blocked an editor without even trying to solve the matter and to make it worse, now he is taking this to other wikis, he blocked Misza on ENWN for no apparent reason just because he thought he was correct when it has been proven over and over again that he is WRONG..he has been slandering, making accusations after accusations against miszatoimic on more than one wiki and honestly, thats unbecoming of ANY admin on WikiMedia. Wikis are run on communities, its the communities who make a decision and when "rogue" admins starts doing things on his own, he no longer deserves to be an admin. A Steward even got the ENWP CU's to make a different SPI solely on Wiki-Star because of his slanderous acts of posting random non-related links on on Misza's SPI with false accusations..His block on Misza also made it harder for him to fight his case here on this page and not to mention his Witch hunt leading to this in the first place...this could all have been solved amicably but he chose to make it to his own personal game so DO NOT TELL ME what to or not to do cause I'm not here to play judge jury and executioner like Cirt, I'm here to fix his damn mess..and also a clerk just closed the SPI case on Miszatomic which means there is no longer a case, Misza has confirmed his 2 socks as Jimmy and Gene and it ends there...any admin can now unblock Misza if they choose and allow him to comment on his OWN de-adminship which is how it was supposed to be from the start.--Ste moc 03:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked many times, and I've dealt with abusive administrators. What I wrote is absolutely standard practice. This is not the page to criticize Cirt. The block was within discretion, given the evidence he had. All the stuff he wrote is another matter, but that is not the issue here It would be if this were about him. It's not. He could be a Horrible Monster and we still have a problem: an administrator who socked to vote-stack, who did not admit it when asked, and who did make an edit while logged into the vandal account. We may choose to forgive him any or all of these, but we need the truth first. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of your block on enwiki and for the reasons. The block here was not warranted, without proof he went to meta to get Misza de-sysopped and when the stewards won't allow it, he had him blocked for calling a vandal "faggot", and indefinitely blocked as well. The case was about the vote-stacking but he made it personal with hurling accusations and blocking him on ENWN where he has admin access thus admin abuse. The process which Cirt followed to get the "socking master" to confess was downright insulting and if i was the one doing the socking, I would most definitely not reply either..we have now solved one of the problems, but we cannot solve the other which is this de-adminship and Misza needs to be able to come here on this page and clear it out himself--Ste moc 05:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Miszatomic has just been unblocked at Wikipedia. Read CU conclusion here: [9] ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick summary: there has been extensive discussion among checkusers of the Miszatomic situation, and there were two outcomes:
The identifications of Miszatomic as the vandals Jodie Fosteur, DanielTom6, and DanielTom7, have been retracted. I have requested that Cirt unblock Miszatomic, the most serious charges now not being supported by checkuser. Miszatomic should still put up an unblock template, in case Cirt does not respond.
It was realized that improper socking by Miszatomic did not happen on Wikipedia and that therefore he should not have been blocked for it. --Abd (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn by nominator - no community support for removal at this time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]