Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Poetlister

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive collecting requests for restricted access by Poetlister. See current discussion or the archives index.

Poetlister[edit]

2008-05 admin[edit]

Poetlister (talkcontribs) Analysis

Poetlister has been working on Wikisource since early December 2007, and has amassed 1400 edits. Poetlister's user page lists a number of the larger projects completed and in progress, but most importantly the contribs show a broad application of skills required to administrator Wikisource, inc. adding license tags, patrolling (around ~600 changes marked as patrolled), welcoming users, participating in WS:CotW, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am delighted to accept.--Poetlister 11:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Note to closing bureaucrat: In view of discussions going on elsewhere, I stress that I am the same user as Poetlister on WP and elsewhere, and accept no responsibility for any other Wikimedia account.--Poetlister 11:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as nom :-) Poetlister has been very active in a short time, and the only controversy I've seen being The Bell-Buoy : I think the outcome of that was very good - strong opinions are a good thing. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, a quick look over Poetlister's recent contributions show good judgement and an attitude suitable for an administrator. In my very newbie opinion, I think Wikisource will benefit from having people like Poetlister as administrators. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, was very surprised when I found out that Poetlister was not already an admin. I trust them with the tools. Suicidalhamster 12:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Yann 13:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Poetlister is a very good editor, admin and bureaucrat on Wikiquote. If she brings the same conscientiousness and attention to detail here, she will be a fine admin.--Cato 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Absolutely, a good guy. giggy (:O) 10:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, CotW = fastest route to adminship. Take note newbies! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: William Lyon Mackenzie King 01:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I trust Poetlister, and I recognize the good work she has done here. For the bureaucrat's advisement, Poetlister informed me of this RFA in an email but did not ask me to comment. Shalom 01:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Jusjih 02:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support.--GrafZahl (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per consensus above and having seen contributions. --Kelsington 11:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you all very much.--Poetlister 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

2008-09 vote of confidence (failed)[edit]

Due to recent information that has been disclosed at meta:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato, it is now common knowledge that the person behind the Wikisource accounts Poetlister (recently renamed to Quillercouch), Cato, Yehudi and Bedivere are presumed to be the same person, and there may be more accounts.

There has not been a lot of abuse by these accounts on Wikisource, however as one is an admin, there is the matter of trust to be re-evaluated.

Per our policy for votes on confidence, three people have supported the need for this recall at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Poetlister, where more information and a more general discussion is ongoing. Until this matter has been decided by 'crat Zhaladshar, the admin account Quillercouch is required to not use the tools.

Voting on this matter should be delayed for a reasonable period in order to give the named accounts sufficient time to respond at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Poetlister and/or meta:Requests for comments/Poetlister and Cato. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment, an administrator may or may not have multiple accounts; but is not alleged to have abused them in any meaningful fashion (once responded to their own query to bolster "support", nothing else?). Either way, I don't see how this is relevant to Wikisource; where only one account is an administrator. (I see the issue where a user has two admin accounts, but an admin and a regular or three? I don't see any loss of my trust in their actions). Am I missing a large piece of the puzzle? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Charles Spurgeon 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    I have provided more details at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Poetlister; please comment there, as this is a proper recall request. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't feel comfortable with this person having the admin tools. Giggy (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I echo the above, for now. While there hasn't strictly been abuse here, new evidence suggests that this user is not trustworthy as a person, negating their separate user: records on individual wikis. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment — John's last on ws:s about the photo, here, is a clincher. This seems to be a photo of some young woman used without her consent to perpetuate a fraud; here, Commons, all over the wiki-verse. I have read the meta discussions — at least as of a hour ago. It is damning and it wends its way into many wikis. And I've not seen a peep out of this user about people's concerns. I believe the Quillercouch account should be immediately de-sysoped and the others blocked for good. And if a response is not presented soon, block Q, too. No trust, here. I'm all for second chances, and this one was squandered. Jack Merridew 10:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    amended the above to be a 'comment' per John's comments below. Jack Merridew 08:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    striking the 'comment' — consider this a de-sysop opinion. Jack Merridew 14:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I supported the candidacies of Poetlister and of Cato elsewhere (although I did not support Poetlister here) out of an assumption of good faith. That good faith was apparently misplaced. Until and unless this is satisfactorily resolved in a way that demonstrates that the multiple identities correspond to multiple real people who are genuinely participants, and who genuinely want to be participants (an outcome that on the face of the evidence so far given seems exceedingly unlikely) in WMF projects, it is time to withdraw that assumption, that sanction. Therefore I support this recall. As with Giggy, I don't feel comfortable with this person having the admin tools here. Or anywhere, for that matter. Although John asked that voting be delayed, I instead suggest that if there is a change in circumstances, (a satisfactory explanation being offered) I will change my vote. Until then, this vote stands. ++Lar: t/c 12:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Make that "change my prospective vote" per John's reiterated request. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know Poetlister, but from the overwhelming evidence I cannot trust them. If the actions were contained to one or two names, that would be one thing, but this.... it really makes me feel sick. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think we need to give Poetlister a week to respond to all this. I strongly believe that when anyone does not offer an explanation for something like this a message needs to be sent that stonewalling will not be tolerated. However the flip side of this is that in order to encourage people to explain themselves we should withold judging them while we are ignorant of their response. So please give this a little time, and make it as easy as possible for Poetlister to feel comfortable sharing their thoughts on this. The best outcome is that we can learn something as project from this situation, and that requires knowing not only what happened but why it happened.--BirgitteSB 13:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I would agree with the above. There's no rush here, and it seems only fair Poetlister is given a good chance to respond and explain themselves. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree; I set up this section so it was plain the recall vote will happen, due to having three established members who have called for it, but I would like people to refrain from voting here until we have a statement from Poetlister, and I have good reason to believe a proper reply will come from Poetlister if given a little time. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • For the record, I don't wish for my initial comment to be considered a vote, but rather a statement of my belief that this forum and this discussion is something that needs to take place and that there is a problem that needs solving here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, happy to hear from them. My initial comment can be taken as a vote unless something convincing comes up. Giggy (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Given the evidence, I don't trust this person to so much as edit a page, much less to be an administrator. I will, of course, revisit this opinion once Poetlister speaks up, but until then, I have no confidence in Poetlister as an administrator. EVula // talk // 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Follow-up Poetlister/Cato has spoken. My belief that he/she/it/they/whatever should be stripped of all additional user rights is as strong as ever. EVula // talk // 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desyssop. I was involved in the investigation and this evidence is very convincing. If you're interested in links ask me or check my meta contribs. That this user got so far for so long doing this stuff and so high in the wiki hierarchy is scary. RlevseTalk 21:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop. The sysop tools are but one bit, are given to trusted users, and are intended to help the project. When users approach admins, they should expect to be dealing with someone in whom the community has expressed their trust. The questions of misleading conduct and other behaviour concern me. Per John, this discussion should not be closed until after Poetlister has provided their own version of events, unless they specifically/unambiguously decline to. Orderinchaos (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Warn and Watch Closely, I haven't seen any evidence of WS sysop tools being misused - he vote-stacked, which merits a stern warning. However, his actions on outside projects are irrelevant to his actions on this project where he is a great help, and a fine administrator. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Albert Schweitzer 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After all that's gone on, all over the place, I don't think I would trust this user with the tools. SQLQuery me! 07:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop. The person behind these accounts started the many different accounts with different personas with the intent to deceive and manipulate other users. This is absolutely not compatible with a position of trust. Aware that sockpupperty happened in the past, but hoping that PL had turned over a new leaf, last April the Wikipedi-en ArbCom unblocked the PL account on WP-en with restrictions and the understanding that monitoring would occur. Through this monitoring and with collaboration with checkusers across multiple wikis, the massive deception was revealed. Given that this user was given a chance to reform once before and abused this trust, I do not think retaining the tools is an option here or any other wiki. I also recommend at minimum a 90 day ban so that the checkusers do not immediately need to look for socks, something that they must do if regularly if this user is allow to contribute here. After 90 days, the decision can be made about whether the editor is welcome back and if any other restrictions are needed. FloNight (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop (per FloNight). Hesperian 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no confidence in this adminship. In the past week I have seen no explanation offered from Poerlister/Quillercouch or anyone else than can satisfy my concerns over the situation on Wikisource combined with the pattern of behavior behind very similar situations outside of Wikisource and the history of outright falsehoods told to members of the Wikisource community. Whatever the purpose of gaining adminship here was, I cannot be confident it was simple or benevolent. I understand why some people here do not feel a betrayal of confidence that others might. But I can't have confidence in Poetlister/Quillercouch. I can't support their continued adminship.--BirgitteSB 00:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove with no prejudice - Take it away from him. However, I am willing to start afresh, if he is too. Should he prove himself to be able to rise up and stop this abuse, I'd be willing to review him as effectively a new user following continued good behaviour. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop. Poetlister has created a network of accounts[1] and used some of them to cast multiple ballots (for example [2], [3]). Furthermore, it appears they have lost overview over their own account network[4][5]. Therefore I do not trust this sysop any more.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop and block indefinitely. See my comments here. This is not a question of deciding whether the improvements he made to the site are more important than a few rules that he broke. This is someone who used Wikimedia sites to hurt real people - stealing the identities of innocent women, uploading their photos under a "free" licence without their consent, linking at least one of these identities to an interest in sexual fetishes, using Wikiquote and Wikisource as a means of gaining respectability on Wikipedia, and of gaining access to sensitive information. As I said on Scriptorium, if Matthew Arnold's poems (or Shelley's or whoever's) are so important to Wikisource that we need to slap his victims in the face by saying that the content he was adding is more important than what he did to them right here at these sites, just give me a list of poems we're missing, and I'll start adding them myself - today! If someone is edit warring and being disruptive on talk pages, reaching the level of inviting a ban, we can take the risk of taking them back without compelling evidence of reformation, because it's not such a big deal if they continue, and they can be re-banned. This IS a big deal - so where is the compelling evidence that he has changed? And evidence shows that the abuse would be continued in a sneaky way, so we wouldn't be as aware of it as in the case of an edit warrior or a vandal. He was given a chance to reform before. Given the the type of conduct he engaged in, it would be irresponsible to give him a third chance. Stratford490 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop I find it hard to trust a user who who has abused multiple accounts with admin rights. I do not. however, support a block as Poetlister has contributed constructively to Wikimedia project. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop for activities directly related to adminship. No to a general block or ban. Ask that he restrict himself to one account for the near future until it is clear that his "lost overview" (to use Graf Zahl's term) has been recovered. Eclecticology (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop. He lied to me about the license of those image, which is against the most fundamental core content policy here, and did it unnecessarily in order to continue to use his fraudulent identity, which by this time was abusing multiple rights on Wikiquote in disregard to the social frabric of a WMF wiki. Only after Wikimedians from across many projects invested a disproportionate amount of time to bring this to a head did he admit it. The corrective action we are seeing is the culmination of immense amount of work and persistence by many people. In this process, he has also lied to English Wikipedia Arbcom, and lied to the English Wikipedia and English Wikiquote community on a scale rarely seen. I will not discount the importance of his actions on other WMF projects just because they did not occur on Wikisource, as it was only a matter of time based on the prior path and my bent on nominating users that appear to know what they are doing. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop and block the abandoned sock Special:Contributions/Cato and Special:Contributions/Quillercouch, show that user appears to have abandoned this admin sock, the editor has admitted to using socks Diff and apologized for their behavior, with no indication of usage that is acceptable by wiki culture (other then qualities edits, that are a product of the individual, who has chosen to edit as User:Cato after abandoning the socks). Jeepday (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop User:Quillercouch and indefinitely block User:Cato as the newer and less-used persona. Also indefinitely block User:Yehudi and User:Bedivere and any of the other names listed at [6] that may exist at Wikisource. The lack of overt abuse here at Wikisource is the only reason not to ban this user in all his incarnations completely. There's no reason he shouldn't be allowed to keep uploading poetry, but I am not comfortable allowing him to, say, view deleted versions of user pages that may contain personal information. And although there are legitimate reasons for multiple accounts, this user has shown across Wikimedia Projects that he can't be trusted with them. Angr 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Desysop User:Quillercouch. This last discovery of him requested whitelist status for his sock makes it quite clear that He seems that he intented to play with here too. I also think that his socks should be blocked too, after he says which account he wants to keep. Yann (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I am closing this vote and requesting on Meta for having admin rights removed from Quillercouch.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Comments
I'd like to make it clear that someone of high access is going to have to eventually bring conclusion to this discussion. I'm assuming we want a bureaucrat to do this, and nothing short? If so, since we have so few bureaucrats in this community, it seems logical that the closing bureaucrat is going to have to remove themselves from the proceedings here for this to be partial closure. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the request will need to be forwarded after closre to Meta here, if the consensus does in fact turn out to be "desysop". —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I request Z to act as b'crat here during my first comment in the Scriptorium discussion.--BirgitteSB 13:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that you did, and John makes note that Z will close the vote in his above opening comment. The numerical way the confidence vote is set up here makes the decision clear. I applaud this leadership of this community for putting this clear system in place. FloNight (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) re removal: While Z has made some comments on the issue he has been less involved than I have (and I promoted the first adminship also). But it is not unusual to have b'crats speaking up during an important issue that they then must close. We don't have so many community memebers that the thoughts of anyone of them are unneeded in the hearing of important discussions.--BirgitteSB 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm! This is not a point that I addressed; there must be some mistake in seeming to respond to me. I have not been critical of the way you have handled this issue. Eclecticology (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"(ec)" means "edit conflict". John Vandenberg (chat) 17:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah! "Ec" Eclecticology (talk)
I'm willing to close this vote when it is needed, which leads me to the following question: since this is the first time we've had a non-automatic confidence vote, how long should it last? I don't think it should go the whole month, just because of the nature of this discussion. How would one or two weeks be?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
A week should be enough. As per Birgitte's suggestion the vote started on the 15th, but it had a long lead-up. There seems to be a strong trend about the syssop bit, even if the other proposals are more divided. Eclecticology (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would also support a week as long enough, as Eclecticology say's there has been long lead up. Jeepday (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI some Wikiquotians suggested even an early close based on w:WP:SNOW, which I mildly resisted. On sysop bits the trend looks obvious here as well as on ours. One week sounds long enough. --Aphaia (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI - I stumbled across this edit [7] where Quillercouch while he was Poetlister, requested whitelist status for his sock Cato. Jeepday (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It was denied by John, however. Giggy (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this. At the time, I was aware that Cato was a sock, and that played a part my decision. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

2010-12 admin (failed)[edit]

Longfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL)

I would like to propose myself for the post of Administrator here, so that I can help this project further. I have been active here since May, and have tried to involve myself in every aspect of the work here. As well as uploading several new works, I have done recent page patrolling, proofreading, fixing double redirects and adding or correcting PD templates, defaultsorts and categories. As a regular on the Possible copyright violations and Proposed deletions pages, I would like now to be able to close discussions.

If fellow editors are prepared to vote for me as an Administrator, I should be honoured to accept.--Longfellow (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify what is being indicated by the SUL link above. cygnis insignis 05:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to the SUL collision detector link, there is the detail at m:Unified_login#Conflict_resolutionbillinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There ought to be a simple explanation for that. cygnis insignis 16:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There is. Someone else (maybe more than one person) used the name Longfellow on other wikis but didn't bother to create a SUL.--Longfellow (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Precisely the same has happened [8] here.--Longfellow (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Which would have prevented you creating an account at those wikipedias. Do you have an alternative (alternate) account for those contributions? cygnis insignis 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This is getting silly. I have no account on, and have made no contributions to, for example the Hungarian Wiki, and have no desire to, as I don't speak a word of Hungarian.--Longfellow (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
But what about the English Wikipedia? It shows up as "unattached." Please don't take offense; I find the report rather peculiar and difficult to understand as well. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled. Anyone would think that this sort of thing is extraordinary. As I have noted above, the same thing has happened to User B who is a bureaucrat and sysop on other projects yet is unattached here. Presumably the User B here is someone different who happened to create this name before there were SULs. Other examples are User D and User E who are sysops on other projects. Those SULs are attached here, but not everywhere. And I've just looked at the first five letters of the alphabet, so that's three examples from the first five SULs I checked! The point is that Longfellow is a fairly obvious name, that more than one person might choose independently. Had I realised that it might be an issue, I'd have called myself something really weird that nobody else had ever though of. None of those other Longfellows is me.--Longfellow (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The unattached enwiki account has not made any edits, so is of no importance. I think what some of us are wondering is: Do you have an English Wikipedia account, and if so what is it? We would just like to make sure that any relevant history (arbitration, etc.) is on the table. --Eliyak T·C 00:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Mixed feelings here. Seems like a reasonable question to ask, but also a reasonable question to refuse to answer. Longfellow should know that we have already unanimously elected an administrator here after three arbitrations and a ban over there, so a history over there doesn't necessarily mean this nom will fail. Also I guess many of these concerns would evaporate if any alternative account was confidentially revealed to and vouchsafed by a crat or checkuser. Hesperian 01:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The irony is that if I were an experienced user who had heard of a SUL before I created this account, I would have chosen a completely unused name and we wouldn't be having this discussion! So I'm being subjected to a Spanish Inquisition (and of course nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) purely because of my naivety when I first started.--Longfellow (talk) 10:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Better to directly decline to answer the question, than employ over-the-top rhetoric while apparently dodging the issue. Hesperian 03:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Longfellow, has all ready stated he is not the cross language alternatives on SUL. Hypothetical activity on another wiki under another ID has no impact on current activities here. There is no reason to assume anything but good faith, on the part of this volunteer. We have a long history of accepting behavior on Wikisource as the sole example of expected future behavior here. There is only a single example I recall Wikisource being involved in crosswiki concerns and in that example. the behavior was inappropriate here as well. Longfellow has addressed appropriately any reasonable questions and my advice would be to for him to ignore any other questions about hypothetical accounts on terrestrial, martian or any other wikis. Jeepday (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Longfellow has been asked twice if he has an account on the English Wikipedia. It is not true that he has answered that question. I would be satisfied with "I would rather not answer that question." I am not satisfied with "What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?", and your jokes about martian wikis are in much the same vein. Hesperian 12:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
W:User:Longfellow has no edits on Wikipedia. His edit history here on his homewiki meets the expectations of Wikisource:Adminship, there are no other criteria of importance. His request for adminship is not related to his real life job, his religion, his education, his anything except his edits as User:Longfellow. He has declined to answer an inappropriate question, I can think of 1,000 more inappropriate questions which also have no impact to the adminship request. There are no impediments to asking prospective admin any question appropriate or not, but there is also no obligation for a prospective admin to even acknowledge the question. Jeepday (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
there are no other criteria of importance—that's just your opinion Jeepday. Clearly some members of this community hold a contrary opinion. Hesperian 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I did miss, one related appropriate question outside of edits as User:Longfellow, if he had significant edits under another name here, it would be appropriate for those to edits to part of a admin review here. While we don't have much of a sock problem or policy here Wikisource:Alternate accounts remains proposed. It would be good form to disclose wikisource activities, under another ID. Jeepday (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is to be taken as a compliment. Evidently I picked up on WS so fast that it is as if I had prior experience. Thanks for the compliment. :-) --Longfellow (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
This reply suggests that you are new to editing wikis, but that is not true. In fact you have other account(s) on this project and other wikis going back 5 years, right? FloNight♥♥♥♥ 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • New Question Longfellow why did you choose Wikisource to be your homewiki, and why did you choose to apply for adminship here? Jeepday (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't choose here to be my homewiki because I didn't know what a homewiki was. I found this site because it kept cropping up on Google searches. I became intrigued by it and felt that contributing to it would be a worthwhile activity. It has proved enjoyable - up till now, at least - so I have persisted. This is not the only wiki to which I contribute; I have made hundreds of edits on WQ. I could easily have made more edits there than here, in which case I understand that WQ would be my homewiki, so the fact that it is WS is a coincidence. However, I do enjoy it here and would like to help it in ways that are only possible to an admin, such as closing deletion and copyvio discussions and deleting broken redirects that cannot be fixed.--Longfellow (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Support: from what I've seen, a great contributor. —Spangineer (háblame) 20:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Longfellow's refusal to even acknowledge a simple, good faith question worries me; I must oppose pending a response to it. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose based on new information - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC) (Original vote: 20:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC))
  • Support --Eliyak T·C 20:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Cygnis insignis asked me to share my current position here (so I shall make this discussion even longer!) -Eliyak T·C 06:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I may be missing something (seriously, am I missing something?), but as I understand it the arguments against adminship are:
  1. Longfellow previously operated multiple sock accounts and used these to establish identities
  2. Longfellow was circumventing a block on Wikiquote
  3. Longfellow was continuing to use the email abilities of his sock accounts
  4. Longfellow over-reacted to questions regarding his past editing.
As I see it,
  1. Two years is enough time to allow a fresh start, as long as that particular brand of sockpuppeteering is in fact over with.
  2. That is an issue for Wikiquote's admins.
  3. It's not clear to me what the purpose or content of those emails were.
  4. I am more willing to see this in a different light now that I know that Longfellow was probably a bit paranoid about his past coming back to bite him.
In other words, I don't have a good argument against adminship. I try to avoid acting out of peer pressure or while caught up in an emotional situation, so I'm not going to change my vote at this time. Thanks for bringing it up. --Eliyak T·C 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Following BirgitteSB's information below that Longfellow has been continuing his multiple-identity activities, I have decided to in fact revoke my support, for reasons 1 & 3 above. --Eliyak T·C 15:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that position is admirable, but I suspect you are indeed missing something. There is are some big clues to this below, there are two comments from highly regarded users, it is very unlikely they would be coming here to oppose without a very good reason. The way this has played out has constrained others from openly declaring those reasons, see comments from previous supporters for more on how that exploited. cygnis insignis 07:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
While it certainly is an issue for Wikiquote's admins to handle the ban circumvention, I can't help feeling that we have some responsibility towards the issue given that he was an account in good standing here while unlinked to his past. His past actions at WQ are egregious in deserving a ban there, and I he has brought us into disrepute by making us complicit in further deceptions there. The content of the emails was a continuation of the particular brand of deception he was know for in the past. Posing as women and claiming his accounts were in fact multiple people. The purpose of this brand of deception is something I have never really understood and something I would need him to explain before I would ever be able to trust him. Whether this information is actually a good argument against adminship probably depends on how important you think "trustworthiness" is as requirement for adminship. Given the ease that people may be removed from positions of trust here, it certainly need not be a very high bar. Although I personally feel differently, it is not crazy to hold the position here that we can make people admins almost by default for committed participation, and then remove them if they ever cause harm.--BirgitteSB 14:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • SupportJeepday (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC), Oppose Earlier significant contributions should have been disclosed. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Oppose: I think variety and diversity in administrators is a desirable thing and my feeling is we’d all be more successful with Longfellow among us, the wikisourcians expressing this to be their wish. But I don’t wish it to become the sort of thing to win by the way of a battle; a few months working for wikisource without recognition seem to me to be better steps towards a true integration. --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support OpposeGeorge Orwell III (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC) -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose, based on further comments from FloNight and BirgitteSB (below) since my initial favorable vote. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Tarmstro99 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Neutral some things to like, some to like a lot, other bits upon which I am cool. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Upon further reflection, while adminship is about use of tools, I am uncomfortable with some of the context of the responses. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – Longfellow, I've not much reviewed your contribs here, or elsewhere, and no one seems to have concerns about that. I'm the admin here that Hesperian refers to, above. I have a history over there, and it stays there. There are perfectly reasonable reasons you and others might choose 'Longfellow' as a user name, and there are reasons a problematic user might, too. I think the gist of what has a few a tad ill at ease is that en:wp is the eight hundred pound gorilla in all the en:rooms of WMF's activities. You speak English and have no involvement in the the w:Big Kahuna Burger? I can see that, too; it's called the toxic wiki for good reasons. Anyway, I had a messy sulutil:Jack Merridew, but have cleaned it all up by usurping the others. This was all before SUL and the others were created by a well known troll, which might not be the case with sulutil:Longfellow. You might consider a global rename to some name without conflicts; just a suggestion. Methinks you should respond more clearly to cygnis insignis, Hesperian and Spangineer, above. Since my en:bumps-in-teh-road, I've been entirely straight with the wider WMF-community about stuff, answered questions, made new friends, &c. It helps. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gaining admin is based on developing a track record from collaborating on site and honest communication with other editors. I recently became aware of his identity and past accounts. Sadly, Longfellow has abused the trust of the community with deceptive comments on and off wiki related to this nom. I might have actively ignored this editors return to editing here except that I also became aware that he is trying to put some kind and trusting Wikisource volunteer editors in a bad place with this community by making misleading statements off and on wiki. I've seen this before with this editor and in my opinion it needs to be put to an end now. I strongly recommend that he link to his previous account now and withdraw this nom. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FloNight. Hesperian 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FloNight. Casliber (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose For two reasons. 1) I've reviewed the editing history as Longfellow carefully and I can't see any need for the extra tools to be assigned to do the gnome work s/he has been doing. 2) The experience I need from an administrator in the areas of the Index & Pages namespaces and then transclusions appears to not be there. (While the past incidents referred to below by Birgitte SB are of concern - particularly socking - they have not played a direct part in my oppose.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Partly because I don't see much call for the tools. The allegations of past socking are worrying, but I don't see any troublesome activity since Longfellow account started in May 2010. The manner of responses to questioning above is most concerning to me: something like a simple "I would rather not disclose that, 'crats agree that this is OK" would have been preferable to such a prickly reply. That said, I do understand why Longfellow would wish to keep the past out of this discussion, and I don't blame him for trying. The manner of response is the problem for me. If Longfellow continues to contribute well, and there is no evidence of misbehaviour here, on on other WMF projects (while other-wiki behaviour doesn't normally concern me, an ongoing predilection for dishonestry, misdirection or abuse of various tools does), and off-wiki in relation to volunteers here, I would certainly be amenable to support a future nomination. However, much as I would like to Assume Good Faith, past behaviour makes me cautious of supporting right now, and any indication of actions unbecoming to an admin between now and a future nomination would cause me to strongly reconsider. In short: continue the good behaviour, and I'll support when I'm sure it's here to stay. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (as a former admin here I think I have standing to comment) Per FloNight and especially per the lack of an answer to FloNight's question about why Longfellow/Poetlister is deceiving the community. Merely making positive contributions is insufficient given the past history of deception. Poetlister needs to move on from WMF projects (and if they could stop using false identities stolen from innocent females that would be good too) ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    Your parenthetical would be real-world criminality in many jurisdictions, and an intolerable deception on-wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Given Inductiveload's comment above regarding "evidence of misbehavior" as Longfellow, there is something I feel the need to clarify. Longfellow, under that account, was in fact explicitly misbehaving even before this adminship request began (although blatant local misbehavior appears not to have started until this was already underway). He is under an active ban at en.WQ from 2008, and he has been circumventing that ban with the Longfellow account. I had personally noticed the WQ and WB userboxes on his local userpage when first looking the account over in consideration of all this. If I had been properly diligent about it, I should have explicitly disused the status of his welcome on those wikis with the CUs. Instead I kind of assumed, without really giving it a great deal of thought at all, that the CUs were all working together with CUs from those wikis. If I had recognized that he was actively circumventing bans on other wikis, I would never have agreed to have this all go forward. No one misled me in this particular matter it was entirely a failure of due diligence on my part. I do not know if anyone else who knew his full history besides myself was at all cognizant of his claims of activity or actual edits on other wikis.--BirgitteSB 21:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Close nomination. I think it's clear by now there will not be consensus to grant admin status, so I say lets end this discussion. If there is anyone who thinks further action is necessary, WS:AN is the place. --Eliyak T·C 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I removed the close template, though I see good reasons to be a little bold and skip WS procedures. How this closed is problematic; something noted in the earlier discussion. This is the holidays and inactive users may wish to modify their position before it is archived, for example: 21:59, 27 December 2010, so allowing a little more time seems prudent. cygnis insignis 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. @Eliyak; well-intended, but let this be done by the book. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would have difficulty enacting the communities will if it had been to support Longfellow's adminship at this point, so it better that I add my voice and leave the closing to Z. I cannot consider supporting him for adminship without hearing a rational explanation as to what the purpose of all his deceptions have been. They have been in such a clear pattern for such a long time that I simply will never be able to trust him without understanding this.--BirgitteSB 14:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination not successful, with bureaucrat agreement. —Pathoschild 19:45:31, 02 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Longfellow's past editing[edit]

As numerous additional parties besides local b'crats and CUs are have now become aware of that Longfellow previously edited as Poetlister. (relevant admin archives) We are obliged to clarify that we were made aware of the connection just prior to his recent application for adminship and that we allowed the application to go forward with certain conditions set out in the following email:

Hi Longfellow,

Since John forwarded on your request, we have been deeply discussing the issues involved with your running for admin solely on the history of the Longfellow account. We were not immediately in agreement over this and have given a lot of thought to the situation. In the end, we have come to the following compromise solution which we both agree on, and we hope that you will find it acceptable also.

We do not believe that it is possible to indefinitely protect you from your history under the Cato account. We do believe revealing the history of the Cato account now would bring in an unmanageable amount drama and make any adminship nomination untenable. As a compromise we believe we can protect your initial run for adminship from the inevitable drama, so long as your full history of accounts on en.WS are made known at your first confirmation hearing. Given that you are successful, this compromise will give you the opportunity to establish yourself as a useful and trustworthy admin who will be capable of weathering the drama of Cato's history at the first year's confirmation. We have no doubts that the en.WS community will be willing to overlook the Cato history so long as your continued contributions are good. We only doubt whether they can give you a fair initial hearing with inevitable outside pressures that will come to bear on the discussion. By allowing you an initial year to establish yourself, we believe the local community will then have a firm enough opinion of you that they may not be unduly influenced by any external pressures.

If you do agree to this compromise and your adminship is successful, the text of this email will be made public at your first annual confirmation. If at any time before the first annual confirmation, it were to come out that the Longfellow account is connected some other account you have used in the past, a vote of confidence will be started with the text of this email revealed at that time.

So long as you can agree to those two points, you are welcome to nominate yourself for adminship omitting any history outside of the Longfellow contributions and we will judge consensus as though nothing were unusual with your account.


Birgitte SB Zhaladshar

Additional note on Longfellows editing from John Vandenberg:

On March 28, 2010, Poetlister privately disclosed to checkusers that he would resume editing with an account to be called Longfellow. The Longfellow account has not edited from a proxy server.

--BirgitteSB 04:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC) (posting with Z's approval also)


[comment moved to Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#Discussion of checkusers' and bureaucrats' roles in Longfellow affair to keep discussion in one place. Hesperian 00:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)]