Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

INSTRUCTIONS[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages needing admin intervention:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots
Renaming
Promotion

Tools:

Discussions[edit]

Al-Ma'arri[edit]

What quotes were on this page prior to its deletion? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The article contained several unsourced verses, some unsourced paraphrases or abstracts, and a large amount of user commentary and interpretation. It had been tagged as unsourced for over two years when it was {{prod}} and deleted. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, I would like to see the quotes myself, so I can perhaps find sources for them. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Twerp troll-vandal[edit]

In relation to the increased vandalism of recent weeks, by what I might henceforth refer to as simply a "twerp troll-vandal", I will begin a section to indicate newly identified or suspected manifestations of this vandal-pest. Eventually a separate page might be warranted for listings of this twerp. ~ Kalki··

This guy is mentally challenged. Admin Miszatomic is doing a great job fighting this sort of vandalism, recently, but he can't be online all the time. Kalki could easily block these vandals on sight, if he was still an admin—it's becoming ever clearer that the recent decision not to grant him adminship has been extremely damaging to this wiki. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

UR moms is mentally challenged. Feel me?! Pls nominate sockmaster Kalki so she can b a corrupt SYSOP once more
I recommend speedy deletion for all of the following "articles" recently created by the vandal User:Here I am, Thursday...:

Oerhjk7Lifts)&!'4:59But u are!Wasting my timeUser talk:213.122.56.24DanielTom, help...MddWas still not blocked!Cumming.Big MommaDavid!GoldenburgRalphCause YA can'tWell, YA can'tUr ass is mine.I went down on her...CumjizzerThe only oneLuv YAFu-!User:Black FreezaHomocideBooger KingH&R CockReverting meKalki oooI wont stopShit, Pt 2American Pie is goodHahahahahaMistake..,Lol!Sunshine on my assBD2412Butter my biscuitsÉ-mail meLalala lalala LA!When do i get blockedDtubLeag567&&Death threatUser talk:Here I am, Thursday...I dont care.Patent nonsenseShitUser:AlexandervonweimannJinxing meAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!Welcome hereUser talk:Alexandervonweimann (Note that while nothing is inappropriate about the actual text posted on this talk page, the edit description provided by the vandal reads as follows: "Ur actualy not welcome here.") • Whoa.GeraldoEvangelical churchUglyguy2006Sock, noWhenKalki dies...User:Here I am, Thurday!20638Thursday!Im cumming! Oh sh-!Do a range block to stop me!Yea yea yeaU need glassesBut i didn't!User:Here I am, Thursday...OoooR. KellyPiece of shitUser talk:Shaggy11984 (Note that while nothing is inappropriate about the actual text posted on this talk page, the edit description provided by the vandal reads as follows: "Welcome bitch".) • Reverting U!LOLYou have my blessingsUDSCOTT!I said, LETS GO!Cumshot!DBGRCome for me...To hell with dat!Oooo gumballs!Watch a good movie, read a good book...Jizzing!MLK diedMagazine... dirty!Thursday, noWiki-star!OjgfSave pageT:2456Wow!Ytf3467$AAAAAHHHHTrain jbUtregTrsfuc76$

These pages contain no valuable contributions, and consist almost entirely of nonsense.

Sincerely,
Allixpeeke (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus tap-dancing Christ on a pogo-stick this vandal really does get around. He seems to be going by the name "Alabaster" now. Admins, please help immediately if you can. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 04:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser request during ongoing Adminship discussion[edit]

  1. See history of socking by Kalki as chronicled at: User:Cirt/Kalki Restrictions.
  2. We have an ongoing Adminship discussion for Kalki at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request).
  3. There are at least a couple users there with very little edits on Wikiquote, each has managed to show up at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request) within less than ten (10) total edits to Wikiquote: [1] and [2].
  4. I've requested Checkuser at [3], and the Steward there wants local support for the Checkuser request.
  5. Allowing possible socking during an ongoing Adminship request could set a dangerous precedent that could pervert the Request for Adminship process.

Can we please have the Checkuser request carried out on accounts commenting at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki (4th request)?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly have no objections to my own IP and user activity, or anyone else's being actively monitored as heavily as anyone feels the need to, as I know that I am NOT engaging in any unethical activity. I actually do recognize the dubiousness of some of the support and oppose votes for me of those with few edits, and believe that at least some of these might well be the activity of the current troll-vandal intent on causing confusion, suspicions, fear and paranoia, as others of low ethical integrity have also done for many years. The assertion that "Allowing possible socking during an ongoing Adminship request could set a dangerous precedent that could pervert the Request for Adminship process" is quite a laughable example of this, as I do not know anyone who is actually sane who has ever proposed "ALLOWING" such things, though I believe I do know of some people who have regularly engaged in many forms of malicious deceitfulness, SUCH as that, and certainly do not wish to permit such practices to continue without whatever appropriate responses can be devised.So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 13:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I see nothing in the activity of the named accounts that gives me any reason to suspect Kalki is behind them. If one wishes to draw attention in the ongoing RfA discussion to the history of alternate accounts then it is sufficient to refer to that history, as has been done. If one wishes to allege or insinuate that Kalki is now violating a consent decree to foreswear multiple accounts then it is necessary to produce some specific and substantive basis for suspicion. As billinghurst opined, "There is no advantage and no demonstrated urgency for doing checks now, and it could be seen to pervert the discussion if they are not socks." ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Ningauble:Why did both accounts somehow navigate their way to a Request for Adminship discussion for Kalki, within their first ten (10) total edits? -- Cirt (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I have noted my support of the Checkuser request, not because I believe these accounts to be in any way associated with Kalki, but because I believe them to be suspicious in their own right, given the recent patterns of vandalism that have been seen on this site. It is entirely possible that these accounts are engaged in nefarious deeds, and have voted in Kalki's adminship bid specifically to bring it under a cloud of suspicion. However, I would oppose a Checkuser investigation directed at Kalki himself at this time, absent evidence of any current misfeasance on his part. BD2412 T 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes check.svgY Done, and Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed as socks of someone else who has already voted, per Checkuser by Billinghurst at diff. -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)