Meta:Babel/Archives/2011-07

Poetlister on Meta

user:Quillercouch has been left unblocked. This was user:Poetlister and user:Cato of Requests for comment/Poetlister and Cato fame (2008), and Requests for comment/Wikisource adminstration problems (2010-11). Also, user:Yehudi, user:Brownlee, user:whipmaster and user:Longfellow haven't been blocked with email disabled. Recommend CU of them all. John Vandenberg 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Quillercouch done - is there any evidence that email has been abused (recently)? I failed to see any reason to amend the blocks otherwise. Unless anyone can point to recent editing any CU data will be so stale it will be completely pointless. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Wikisource adminstration problems was caused by Poetlister using the email function on accounts which were not being monitored closely because it appeared they were inactive. John Vandenberg 01:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Without a CU here, there's no way to know if they have been used as such. However, the request won't harm anything and may do a little good, given the strong historical evidence, so I've disabled the e-mail on those five accounts. Courcelles 02:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For clarity - my point was that without any editing CU is fairly pointless as there wil be no results (& I could run it but there seems no evidence that is is required). Equally I was unaware that we amended blocks because it would do no harm - a new idea to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not an ordinary problem we are discussing, either, and this one's MO makes this a request a more than logical precaution. Courcelles 11:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that - I was dealing with Poetlister on various wikis some time before they were finally "discovered" (on here too I've run CU on his accounts - looks like I first ran cu here early in 2008 on this topic). --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• With all due respect, why on Earth was this action taken? Blocks are meant as preventative measures if I remember correctly, and blocking a user with no history of distruption here is what I consider to be nothing short of abuse of the sysop tools. Additionally, if the user is using sockpuppets here to abuse consensus or whatever else sockpuppets do, go ahead and block him, but without any hint of disruption I see this action as unjust in the extreme. Why are we blocking a user here for actions taken on other wikis, when there is absolutely no indication that the said actions will be repeated here? Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

  Poetlister illegally uploaded and used images of other people on his user page; this happened on most WMF projects, including meta. He was given another chance after this, but they have since been caught using special:emailuser primarily to lie about their history, and doing this from accounts which are unblocked or still able to send emails. These blocks prevent a habitual liar from deceiving new users via their known accounts. John Vandenberg 04:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information above - it would have convinced me to run the check earlier had it been posted. None of the accounts listed above have any activity from a CU perspective currently. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated. John Vandenberg 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, that is a good reason to block. Might have been nice to find out about the reason before blocking, but there's no way to go back in time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I found this thread now and am astonished we've left them unblocked. As for the question if he disrupted on this wiki, he did. See Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Cato for his blatant self-support to Cato by using his main sockpuppet Poetlister. I support fully for blocking his accounts here on meta indefnitely. --Aphaia 01:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

An RFC for a global ban for Poetlister and any socks has been opened, because of a six-year history of methodically hoaxing and disrupting three different Wikimedia communities. [this history suggests that a ban may be more appropriate than repeatedly offering new opportunities to be a good contributor for a time before causing widespread social disruption]. See Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister - all are invited to respond there. Please do not block the Poetlister account here while the RFC is ongoing, so that the user can respond. –SJ talk | translate   17:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Im new here to all this for my self I've i have been on the blocked side with in only the form of site's saying it is ok to write and after gitting to a point of what is said to be are right tp write we are blocked i have fonld pages copywrited by book Co's ?