Status: Away until May. bd2412 T (e)
This page is closed until May 1.
This is mostly so I don't need to add anything to my April 2018 archive. Also, I have work to do elsewhere. See you then. BD2412 T 03:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Request for adminship
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship#Just_A_Regular_New_Yorker_(talk_%C2%B7_contributions) - J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣 18:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on it. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- I really hate to be a nudge, but is there any chance you can add to the discussion? I hate asking this, I know no one wants to be told to do something by someone else, but I received opposition, and only mild support, and I would appreciate if a sysop showed support. Thanks. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 22:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you were nudging me to be aware of it. I am also a 'crat here, so I will likely be closing the discussion. It would therefore be a conflict if I also proffered a substantive opinion. BD2412 T 22:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
- If the discussion ends the way it is now, with one oppose, one support, and one weak support, will that be enough to be promoted? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would not consider that sufficient. Promotion to adminship is a considerably more substantial matter than the typical discussion and vote. BD2412 T 01:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions for how I can get people to chime in? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 01:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose you could post a notice in the Administrator's Noticeboard. BD2412 T 01:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I’ll try that. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 02:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like the vote is over. How does it work. Does it depend on the decision of the first ‘crat that gets to it, or are the votes counted? J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 18:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- The closing 'crat weighs the consensus of the community. I would let this stay open for a few more days to see if there is any further participation, or any further reply to any of your comments. BD2412 T 21:31, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- Haha, don't thank me, now you have more work to do! BD2412 T 21:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello BD2412, I'll like to solicit your help for a task. I think it would be beneficial if a photo of Raymond Chandler was there on his article. But there doesn't seem to be a way to make his photo appear there, not with the usual methods as it is on Wikipedia and not Commons, see w:File:RaymondChandlerPromoPhoto.jpg. Is there any way for it to be shown on the article without copying it to Commons? If not, can you see if it can be copied to Commons because I'm not too sure about the copyright laws. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- The reason that the Raymond Chandler photograph can be shown on Wikipedia, and can not be moved to Commons or used on Wikiquote, is that the copyright law restricts the fair use of images covered by copyright to circumstances where they are required to illustrate the description of the subject for educational value. An encyclopedia article on the subject is considered to be of such value, but a collection of quotes from the subject is considered to be merely entertainment, and not susceptible to fair use. Therefore, we can not use copyright-protected images anywhere on Wikiquote. BD2412 T 14:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh too bad I didn't know it couldn't be used in another wiki. Thanks for making me aware about it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I believe you are the only WQ admin I know of. Mind taking a look at this? GMGtalk 12:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Page protected, vandal blocked. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Time to undo edit protection?
I refer to this: Changed protection level for "Wikiquote:Wikiquote": Edit warring / Content dispute Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- No edits should be made to this page without discussion, so I see no reason why it should ever be unprotected. BD2412 T 22:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. I inadvertently violated this rule in October and November of last year. I intend to propose we add a note to this page to alert other editors of this restriction and instruct them on how to propose future changes. Where can I find the rule to reference in my proposal? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- Generally, proposals to change a policy should be raised on the talk page for that policy. BD2412 T 16:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I'm still having trouble getting my mind around this. In particular I have three questions:
- 1. Where can I find the general rule that policy page changes should be raised on the talk page?
- 2. Is WQ:WQ a policy?
- 3. Why are none of the pages listed in Wikiquote official policy category edit protected? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- 1. The general rule that policy page changes should be raised on talk pages can be found at Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines#How policy has been formulated.
- 2. WQ:WQ should be considered policy. Although we have never had a formal adoption discussion of the topic, it predates most other policies and has been treated as policy by the community since its adoption.
- 3. Other pages are likely unprotected because they have not been subject to a pattern of vandalism and/or edit warring. BD2412 T 16:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Info box text
As indicated above, I have in mind proposing a box at the top of WQ:WQ along the lines of
|This page is an official policy on Wikiquote.|
It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.
Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion.
Based on what you've told me, I'm thinking the text would be something like this -
|This page has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.|
You cannot make any changes to this page without prior discussion.
Does that correctly explain the permanent edit protection? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, but note that the edit protection in this case is not merely due to the page being a policy page, but specifically a result of the vandalism or edit warring which has occurred on that page. BD2412 T 02:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Is that something we should say in the box? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I would just go with the first box, since page protection due to misuse can occur anywhere. Policy changes should not be changed without discussion, but will not necessarily be locked for editing. BD2412 T 14:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Which is the "first box" - the first box above (the standard policy page box) or the second box above (the first draft of my proposed box for this page)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- The standard policy page box. BD2412 T 17:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm seeing two possible problems with this: First, this isn't a policy page. (What is the process for making it a policy page?) Second, the policy box says "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion." I'm thinking that doesn't reflect the status of this page, to wit: discussion required for any change. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I understood you to say (see above) that one of the reasons you left this page permanently edit protected was because it should not be edited without first discussing the change on the talk page. Did I get it all wrong? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- That the page should not be edited without discussion includes editing to add Easter egg links to topics unrelated to the page. I see no discussion of whether to add those links to the page in the first place. BD2412 T 02:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- So the rule is "no edits without discussion EXCEPT edits which undo a prior edit made without discussion"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- In this case, it was an administrative action to restore a status quo ante preceding the addition of dubious piping for a policy page. Obviously, it would be absurd if undiscussed changes were made to such a page without discussion, and then could not be reverted by an administrator without discussion (in which case, for example, a vandal could replace the page with a string of obscenities, and the obscenities would then need to remain until a community consensus had been reached for their removal). BD2412 T 15:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- So the rule is "no edits without discussion EXCEPT edits by an administrator which undo a prior edit made without discussion"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- It's not an exception, it is merely enforcement of the rule. For example, the law doesn't say "you can't take someone's wallet without their permission EXCEPT if you are a police officer taking a wallet back from a pickpocket to return to the person the pickpocket took it from". BD2412 T 18:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- "No edits of this page without prior discussion. To enforce this rule an administrator may make an edit without prior discussion."? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- As a practical matter, that is necessary and correct. BD2412 T 23:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Back to the info box text proposal
I have two concerns about using the standard policy info box for this page:
FIRST, this page is not currently identified as a policy page. (I'm wondering what the procedure is for making it a policy page.)
SECOND, the policy box says "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion." Not "You cannot make any changes to this page without prior discussion (unless you are an administrator enforcing this rule)." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Info boxes like these are directed to provide information to people who might be expected not to know the rules. They do not need to indicate that administrators are permitted to make edits to enforce the rules, just as STOP signs on the street do not need to say "STOP (unless you are an emergency vehicle heading to an emergency)", and "No entry" signs generally do not need to say that authorized people are still allowed to enter. Now that you know the rules, you don't need such an indication either. BD2412 T 04:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding my first concern, I await your response.
- Regarding my second concern, taking out the parenthetical still leaves us with a conflict between "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion" (which allows any edit and asks for, but does not require, prior discussion for significant changes) and "You cannot make any changes to this page without prior discussion." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I addressed the first point previously in this conversation. As for the second, perhaps a better wording would be, "Significant changes should not be made to this page without prior discussion". BD2412 T 17:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- First concern: Are you referring to "WQ:WQ should be considered policy"? If so, do I correctly understand the answer to the question of whether it is a policy to be "no, but it should be"? If so, then that brings me to my second inquiry: You mention "a formal adoption discussion." Where does that take place?
- Second concern: How does "Significant changes should not be made to this page without prior discussion" work if the page is permanently edit protected (blocking even insignificant changes)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Some pages in the project space on this site are old enough that they were created to serve as policy pages prior to the adoption of normal practices for establishing policies. I would consider this to be one of them. The place to initiate a formal proposal for a page to be considered a policy page would be Wikiquote:Village Pump, where I have opened such a discussion with respect to WQ:WQ. As to the edit protection, no policy page should be edited without discussion, but where a page is subject to vandalism or edit warring, we have no choice but to protect it. Protection may be indefinite without being considered permanent, as any administrator can unprotect a page if they thing further issues are unlikely to arise. BD2412 T 22:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Please review whether the time has come to unprotect this page
Looking at the history of WQ:WQ it appears to me - maybe I'm missing something - that there has been only one incident of disruptive editing in the past 15 years. That disruption was caused by only one editor. Given this history I suggest that "further issues are unlikely to arise" that require the continuation of an edit protection that began 7 months ago. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Any administrator can unprotect the page. I would therefore suggest proposing this at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard, so that we can get a sense of whether other administrators agree that further issues are unlikely to arise. BD2412 T 20:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that was somewhat equivocal. However, I do note that the one admin to chime in seemed to favor unprotection. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is another possible way to look at it: We both agree that substantial changes to policy pages "shouldn't" take place without prior discussion (you would go further and say "mustn't"). Converting QT:QT from unprotected to permanently protected is a substantive change. The discussion on the admin noticeboard did not result in consensus support for permanent protection. So, now that the edit war is well in the past, we should revert to the status quo, to wit: unprotection. Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since discussion is now underway on the Administrator's noticeboard, the issue should be resolved in that discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take my thought there. (I posted here because I was thinking the discussion there had petered out. And I wanted you to get first crack at my alternative approach.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Urgent - article protection needed
Please protect Jonathan Mitchell. The IP is removing quotes that have been verified as from the subject, and if they are not notable then neither are the rest of them. I have evidence that the IP is a user socking, the user being the creator of the article who has a history of biased editing on Wikipedia. This is urgent. Thanks. TLPG (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds like you are having a content dispute. I would disagree that all quotes are equally notable. BD2412 T 02:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- What about the sock issue? The article should be protected at least surely? Also I wouldn't mind knowing how some quotes are more notable than others. TLPG (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have semi-protected the page for two weeks. As for the notability of individual quotes, see Wikiquote:Quotability. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've challenged the IP to go to the talk page and prove the quotes aren't notable, and how the originals are. For the record, I put them there for balance. TLPG (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
A favour maybe?
I hope this isn't out of line, particularly on a public platform, but I have seen that you are an admin on Wikipedia as well as here. Could you possibly do a checkuser on the IP editing on the Jonathan Mitchell article against the creator of the article on WP? The IP is totally denying it but I have evidence (that can't be revealed publicly due to privacy rules) that it is him. A CU would confirm it. It would enforce a block on here for the IP range for say three months (a soft block of course to avoid collateral damage), although I would leave it for another 48 hours at the most to allow the IP to go to the talk page as challenged. If the IP doesn't show up it will mean that he has nothing and may well try to revert again once the protection expires in two weeks without talking about the content. A note - the user concerned has had an article he created speedily deleted and out of the very same bias against Autism (hence his editing on the Mitchell article here) he has it in draft mode determined to have this person have an article as part of his efforts to promote Autism in a negative light, rather than in a balanced manner. The draft is for Thomas Clements. TLPG (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am not a Checkuser on any project. BD2412 T 21:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ah sorry. I foolishly assumed CU was automatically part of your powers. By the way, as an indication of guilt (IMHO), I got an alert when I logged in that the creator of the article mentioned me on Wikipedia. He would only have done that if he knew what was going on here. If there is anything you can do on WP I would appreciate it. I don't edit on WP. TLPG (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thomas & Friends vandals...
...are at it again. Apparently, protecting each article for six months was not going to stop them. I request each article (including The Railway Series, The Adventure Begins, etc.) be protected for no less than a year, and that all these vandals be blocked for no less than that same time period, lest they vandalize other pages. WikiLubber (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
It is changing the release years of film articles without explanation. I request all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than six months and the IP be blocked for no less than that same time period. WikiLubber (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- The IP has been blocked. I see no reason to protect all of the pages. BD2412 T 04:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Another remorseless vandal afoot...
On The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea, it constantly removes quotes and replaces Melody with Jasmine, but there is no Jasmine in the Little Mermaid franchise. I request the IP be blocked for no less than three months. WikiLubber (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for a week, but since it just started editing, there's no way to know whether this is a dynamic IP which can quickly change to a new address. If vandalism from this IP address resumes, I will impose the lengthier block requested. BD2412 T 23:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi BD2412ǃ Have you noticed this? w:Wikipedia talk:External links--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notice. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the go with Evula's ongoing rights? It is 4+ years since they used them, and 2+ years since they have been seen on any wiki. I know that Evula was an early member here and elsewhere, however, in light of recent history, why would we have those rights retained for someone who is fully inactive? sDrewth 12:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Billinghurst. You can open a discussion a WQ:VP or WQ:AN regarding this, and if three users support a vote of confidence, then one can be opened at WQ:RFA. GMGtalk 22:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- As peripheral to the community, I will leave it to those properly active to look at, I just find it weird. sDrewth 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC) sDrewth 11:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Note: It has been a while since a vote of confidence has been raised over inactivity, but the last time that happened, there was no consensus for any removal of rights. BD2412 T 12:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)