Task

if you have any tasks which you need fellow sysops' hands, please put it on here.

MediaWiki:Boardvote_* update

We lack some MediaWiki files for Boardvote interface. I updated two files (one created precisely). See also m:Election UI text 2005; without those two files, most of all could be simply copy & paste from there (= some should be updated). --Aphaia 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General

Unnecessary VfDs

I was just closing the Shuvo Bakar VfD when I noticed that we'd already VfD-deleted this several months ago. A previously deleted article is speedy-deletable under the existing Wikiquote:Deletion policy. We should start checking any new nominations (or articles we want to nominate) for their presence in WQ:VFDA. Two quick ways to do this:

Open WQ:VFDA and do a case-insensitive find on the article name. (We've had cases of articles recreated with similar names or case differences, so this method is more accurate — and faster — than checking the TOC.)
Go to the target article and click on "What links here" to see if Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive or Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/ARTICLE_NAME is listed. (Since I've created subpages from all existing VFDA entries, and I'm currently the only one closing VFDs, for which I always create a subpage, there should always be both.) These links may be from an old VfD, or merely from a reference to the article in another one's VfD entry. If you find them, then you need to go to the page to examine it. (The subpage is vastly quicker and easier to examine, and its content is identical to the main VFDA page's transcluded text.)

I've just checked all existing VfD nominations (from "Jan Kaim" to "Boyd Rice and Friends") and verified there are no duplicates currently. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also look at the page history; there should be a "X deleted revisions" link up at the top. If you click on that link, it'll show you the revisions that were deleted, along with the deletion log entry, which one assumes will say "Deleted per VFD" or something similar. That might be quicker than running a search on the archives. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 02:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I know I usually (but don't always) check article history before nominating or voting, primarily to see who has edited and how much activity there's been. But that link is fairly unobtrusive, so it's easy to miss unless you make a point to look for it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot flagging

I somehow doubt it'll be a big issue, since we only have one flagged bot, but bot flagging has now been made a task for local bureaucrats. Bots can be flagged and deflagged (this is a change; generally, removal of access is only done by stewards) by local bureaucrats through the Special:Makebot interface, and are logged at Special:Log/makebot. I'm happy to report this was done with great support from the stewards, and implemented on the order of Jimbo Wales.

If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Sorry, I can't seem to find where to report vandalism on this project. User:216.164.203.90 is persistently continuing to vandalize despite warnings. Could an admin please address (and let me know where to report this in the future)? Thanks! MPerel 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:InvisibleSun blocked the vandal (thank you). Though I still would like to know the best place to report in the future, thanks! MPerel 01:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can report it on Wikiquote:Vandalism in Progress. Thanks for helping to revert the vandalisms. -InvisibleSun 01:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MPerel 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless plug: For users who also use IRC, there is a channel on the freenode network that has real-time reports of suspected vandalism. It can be found on irc.freenode.net at #vandalism-en-wq. It's run by me and my staff from the Vandalism Control Network (VCN). If you aren't an IRC user, but are interested in becoming one, let me know and I can help you get set up. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User name blocking

I found a new user whose name is hardly acceptable for me by chance (he or she had no edit then) and blocked this account.

(Block log); 04:08 . . Aphaia (Talk | contribs | block) (blocked "User:Hotpussy" with an expiry time of infinite: User name blocking; not acceptable name; the user can however request for name change with his or her IP address information by mail, if expects.)

our current policy allows us to block inappropriate user names, however I'm aware what is inappropriate might vary from person to person. So I'd like to let you all know that and take an appropriate action from his eyes, if necessary. --Aphaia 04:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complicated situation. Hotpussy, Coldcat (note the pattern), and impersonator Paul August were all created within 3 minutes of each other, August directly by Coldcat. Now the Hotpussy block resulted in a complaint from 216.164.203.90 (talk · contributions), who has already been connected to a similar 2-user disruption scheme (see User talk:Wazzawazzawaz#Investigating user complaint). Furthermore, 216.164.203.90 has shown a mysterious ability to evade IP blocks. We need to find out how this is happening. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WQ:VIP#Coldcat_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_page_moves_.E2.80.A2_block_user_.E2.80.A2_block_log.29 for a discussion of the 216.164.203.90 situation. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking changes

I've copied and pasted the following from Essjay's announcement on WQ:VP:

Tim Starling, one of the main Wikimedia developers, has made a massive overhaul to the block system. Now, sysops are presented with two new options when blocking users:

Block anonymous users only, and

Prevent account creation.

By default, the first option is unchecked, and the second is checked; this preserves the status quo, making blocks act just as they previously did. However, sysops may choose to block only anonymous users on a given IP, allowing longer blocks of ISPs like AOL that frequently re-assign their IPs (sometimes as quickly as on every page load) without blocking legitimate contributors. Likewise, sysops may choose to uncheck "prevent account creation", which will allow new users to be created while the IP is blocked. This option is intended to prevent casual vandalism while still allowing those who wish to become regular contributors to do so.
More information can be found at w:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Blocks_can_now_be_made_on_only_anonymous_users. as well as on the wikitech-l mailing list. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I already know the answer to this, but is there any policy page that describes the new system and its implications clearly and simply, not in dialog (as in the noticeboard link above) or in developer-speak (as in the Wikitech posting that one user incorrectly claims "answered just about all of" some questions on this feature)? I'm amused — and concerned — by Tim's statement: "This has a potential to be counterintuitive -- unblocking someone's IP can in fact cause them to be blocked." In my experience, anything that can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, and unintentionally misused, will be. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of, yet. If I come across something, I'll post it here. To explain what Tim means: With the new hierarchy, some blocks override others. So, for example, if 12.34.56.78 is directly blocked with "block anons only" and autoblocked at the same time, any user on it will be able to continue editing; if the same IP is unblocked, and the autoblock kicks in, they won't be able to. This is because in the first case, the autoblock is overidden by the direct block; when the direct block is removed, the autoblock kicks in, and autoblocks don't allow logged-in users to continue editing. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFDA transclusions broken

Well, I've managed to break the current VFDA system. I added 2 more closed entries, and got a mangled page and a bunch of error comments back. Details are at Wikiquote talk:Votes for deletion archive#VFDA transclusions broken. This means we have an immediate need to change to a different system. I urge all sysops, especially those with WP experience and those involved in VfDs here, to review and discuss alternatives ASAP on that talk page. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial update of WQ:SD now live

I have implemented the long-delayed draft overhaul of Wikiquote:Speedy deletions for a 1-month trial period. Please read the new policy page before making further speedy deletions or VfD nominations, and discuss the new policy at Wikiquote talk:Speedy deletions. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major update to deletion policy

I have just done a major update to Wikiquote:Deletion policy to accomodate the accumulated changes of the past 17 months. It is still marked as a policy under revision, so I invite everyone to discuss these changes at Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy#Major update to deletion policy. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-requested talk page deletions, redux

A user is still trying to get us to "leave me alone" on the issue of his talk page, this time redirecting it to Main Page, which I reverted as unacceptable. But I also have since discovered that we failed to notice a provision in Wikiquote:User page that allows users to do exactly what he did — request a user talk page deletion with a speedy-delete tag. He hadn't done it exactly according to How do I delete my user and user talk pages?, but on the other hand, our instructions were inaccurate because they referred to a non-existent {{deletebecause}} tag (which I've just now created as a redirect to {{db}}). Anyway, I've told him that we might be able to accomodate his original request, but since we went through nearly two weeks of discussion on this without catching this error, I felt I should bring it up here before executing the deletion. I would suggest that we shouldn't really stand on rules that interfere with reasonable intent, especially if we didn't notice a rule that allowed this intent. I see no "administrative need" to retain user's talk page at this point, because (A) he has made no contributions to Wikiquote other than over the issue of his talk page; (B) he has not been disruptive in the way that would normally make us want to keep his talk-page history available for community review; (C) sysops can examine the deleted history if they wish; and (D) we can append a final note to the VfD discussion indicating the final resolution. Any thoughts? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem now with deleting his page. Should he ever make a Wikiquote edit (unlikely) that would prompt the need to send him a message, then the page would have to be restored; but in the mean time it might as well be removed. - InvisibleSun 22:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the consideration that an ordinary user may want to post a message to his talk page, which would then present a history-merge problem. But my thinking is that (A) this is very unlikely, especially given Vit's lack of participation; and (B) there's nothing particularly ominous about his talk page edits, besides a little working off of frustration. So I think that outright loss of the old material to the community at large is no big deal. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ask to block and desysop LrdChaos

LrdChaos has three times revealed my true identity:

Twice it was gross negligence, for the third time it was malicious intent. Since he or she has intended to repeate his behaviour again ("Please do not edit my comments, especially on my own Talk page.") I ask for blocking him / her to prevent doing this.

LrdChaos showed ignorance of the rules Wikiquote:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?, m:Changing username, and wikimedia:Privacy policy and behaved uncollegially. That's why I ask for his / her desysopping. -- Zacheus 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the relevent section of my talk page for more detail about the issue, including my replies and refutations. —LrdChaos (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having watched this exchange with some amusement, I find that the case being made to block and remove LrdChaos' sysop status to be far short of the mark. I think that Lrd Chaos has patiently explained the changes and edits that were made and has not done anything wrong. I do not support this request to remove sysop status. ~ UDScott 20:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not support this request. It may interest everyone here to look at the topic immediately preceding this one, which involves the same user and his request to have his talk page removed. As Jeffq has discovered, it looks as though we could delete this person's talk page after all. - InvisibleSun 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Zacheus, it sounds like YOUR intents are malicious. It seems to me that you have a personal grudge against LrdChaos which has nothing to do with his "uncollegially" behaviour, and that you hope to get him blocked as a twisted sort of revenge for something completely unrelated. As if that were not enough, your three incidents are actually only one incedent, misleadingly reformatted to make it appear as 3. MJMyers2 20:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be amused, but my right to privacy is violated by LrdChaos and you support them. Is this friendly?

I don't insist for blocking of LrdChaos if he or she will tolerate removing my true name from his or her talk page.

Although Lrd Chaos patiently explained the changes and edits, he or she did not followed the rules. If he or she kept Wikiquote:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? originally there was no need for this very boring discussion. If intetional revealing of other's identity is no violation of rules, I don't know why you have any Privacy Policy. If you don't wish to respect it I see no uselfulness to discuss with you.

I can say to InvisibleSun that LrdChaos has deleted my talk page. I thank him or her for doing that, but this is not enough. I need to remove every mentioning of my real name.

And as to LrdChaos:

"How do I delete my user and use talk pages" governs deletion of User: pages and User talk: pages No problem with that. If you has respected this earlier, that was no need for this proposal.
"Signatures may be changed..." indicates that you may change your user signature This right you have anytime. This stipulation goes directly to previous posts.
m:Privacy policy seems to specifically refute your claims: "When you edit a page [...] you are identified publicly with that edit as its author" In no way. I will always be the author. I will just use another pen name.
"Once created, user accounts will not be removed." No problem with this. No one asks for removing an account.
"Whether specific user information is deleted is dependant on the deletion policies of the project that contains the information." Yes. And that is why I ask for your clemency.
I fail to see how you think I am being malicious by revealing your real name. Because I ask you not to do it. I have the right to remain anonymous.
You registered the account with that username of your own free will, and you made edits to Wikiquote using that name. Yes.
It is bad practice for any user to make edits to archived discussions In normal circumstances, yes. But in this case Personal Data Protection prevails. You may notice, that I did not delete any argument, just sensitive links.
connecting such edits with your previous username is not malicious It is, since I no longer use my real name. You have to obey my will to remain anonymous.

I have no personal dispute with LrdChaos. I don't even know who he or she is.

As if that were not enough, your three incidents are actually only one incedent, misleadingly reformatted to make it appear as 3. Please, read more carefully. First two case are in fact one act of negligance. But, then I intervened. LrdChaos intentionally acted against my will to remain anonymous. -- Zacheus 21:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PMJI but I cannot see a case to answer for LrdChaos here. He was not revealing the real name of a user, but trying patiently to help another user who apparently had two separate accounts to navigate the accepted Wikiquote procedures. I would advise Zacheus that kicking up a fuss about something is not normally a good way to ensure that it gets forgotten. David | Talk 21:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not support this request, as I do not see any evidence that LrdChaos is or has been acting in bad faith, and in fact is following our usual practices. The real problem here is that we have a very unusual request (our first at Wikiquote, as far as I know) for a user to exercise his right to vanish. As most of our active sysops are not sysops at Wikipedia, where this situation has no doubt occurred with some frequency, it is hardly surprising that we would not be aware of the details. (In fact, I discovered this myself while trying a more thorough Google check for our reluctant user's name — to see what's causing him so much grief — revealing a cached Wikipedia user page whose sole content was a permanent-block template and the message "Note: This user has exercised his/her right to vanish.")

In general, we try to follow Wikipedia practices where we don't have formal policy, but there's no way that a project of 8,000 articles and 12 frequent editors can keep up with one of 1.4 million articles and 4200 frequent editors. I'm sure this is also the proximate cause of our failure to notice the previously unused clause of Wikiquote:User page, "How do I delete my user and user talk pages?".

I suggest that we need to implement a system to make user-vanishing possible without undue harm to the project's needs. Meanwhile, I would advise the user in question to stop making edits (under any username) that tie him to the username he is trying to make disappear. Wikiquote is a public forum, and anyone (not just sysops) can deduce one's identity from the edits they make. By making changes to an identity with no involvement in the project save to get rid of the identity, you announced to anyone watching that you were almost certainly the same person. Your purposes would be better served to (A) contact sysops through email (but not excessively, if you don't want to be treated as a troll), and (B) be patient. In an effort to avoid creating policies that we don't ourselves know about (like the WQ userpage clause), Wikiquotians need rather more time to review the problems and potential solutions that both follow Wikimedia guidelines and can be implemented by a tiny project staff. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To David: He was not revealing the real name of a user This is not true. He did so 3 times and third time even after I expressed my intention not to do that.

My intention is not be forgotten. Google does not forget, unfortunately. My intention is to delete every mentioning of my real name, all other discussion preserved, if you wish. I don't know, why this shall have to be a problem. All history will be preserved, unless I will have to ask Danny to remove totally.

To Jeff. Thank you for voice of reason. I agree I should have use e-mails before. But now it is useless. I established this totally useless account "Zacheus" which I have no plan to use. And furthermore, in this way I have to provide my real e-mail adress, although I have no plan to do so.

I still think that LrdChaos acts in bad faith. I asked him to remove my real name. He or she quite contrary returned it back, just to let me know of his or her power. There was no other reason.

The real problem here is that we have a very unusual request I agree. But why not to act in common sense? To delete every mention of my real name and leave everything else. Everybody will be happy.

there's no way that a project of 8,000 articles and 12 frequent editors can keep up with one of 1.4 million articles and 4200 frequent editors. OK, I understand that. But why not be polite to others? What harm will be done, if my name will be deleted?

Wikiquote is a public forum, and anyone (not just sysops) can deduce one's identity from the edits they make. Everyone can deduce, but no one has a right to publish such a deduction.

By making changes to an identity with no involvement in the project save to get rid of the identity, you announced to anyone watching that you were almost certainly the same person. I don't care about it. My intention is not to hide my identity, my intention is to disappear from Google.

Wikiquotians need rather more time to review the problems and potential solutions that both follow Wikimedia guidelines and can be implemented by a tiny project staff. Don't you rather write quotes? I find this discussion rather boring - too much talk about nothing. It is a question of politeness to let me disappear from here. I made bold mistake to edit with my real name and now I try to heal it. -- Zacheus 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little tired of this name-dropping, Zacheus. If you feel that you can get "Danny" to sanction us for our slow but prudent activity on this issue, do it — or stop threatening it. This is not Hollywood, and we don't fear arbitrary decisions from The Powers That Be, because they don't get to be TPTB at Wikimedia without demonstrating more wisdom and patience than you have, so far. Every editor here is a volunteer, and the vast majority of them (including, IMHO, all of the sysops) try hard to follow and implement the massive amount of Wikimedia policy across the projects in our own little corner of Wikidom. As you suggest, most of us here would rather be working on quotes, but it's left to the sysops and some very helpful non-sysops to deal with all of the many issues that arise in maintain a Wikimedia project, not just your one-time issue.

The problem of your identity is one you created. I'm sure you, like many Internet users, didn't realize the potential harm that comes from using your actual name as a username, but the damage is done, and was done many years ago. Google does actually "forget", if you give it time to replace its cache by not constantly renewing the connection to your name in continued arguments. I can understand your concern to get this problem resolved, but you've got to give us time to squeeze this new policy issue into the huge load of work we're dealing with this month. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is no threat. I invoke Danny, because he is a steward and he physically deletes posts which spoils Data Protection. Still, I don't see any reason why you should have all the post deleted, because I still insist in removing my true name only. I invoke Danny, because I was a little bit tired with this endless discussion about my natural right to vanish. I do have a right to remove every mentioning of my real name.

I'm sure you, like many Internet users, didn't realize the potential harm that comes from using your actual name as a username Yes, that is true.

Google does actually "forget", if you give it time to replace its cache Yes. Wikiquote is visited by a robot very often, so this is a questions of days only.

I can understand your concern to get this problem resolved, but you've got to give us time to squeeze this new policy issue into the huge load of work we're dealing with this month. OK. Although I don't see a reason why are so reluctant to implement Meta policy, I give you time to think it over. -- Zacheus 07:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure which "Meta policy" or policies you might be referring to. I believe that the policies you cited earlier (on my user talk page) do not apply, and I explained why. I still don't know which "clear" policy you are referring to. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zacheus is referring to the link I cited above, meta:Right to vanish, which isn't really a policy but a guideline about allowing users to be effectively deleted from Wikimedia-space. It's unfortunate that the phrase "right to vanish" is used, because it implies legal guarantees that that same Meta page is careful to say are not provided by Wikimedia. That page even makes the point that cooperation of the users of a project is necessary, which Zacheus conveniently failed to acknowledge. My point was that we administrators need to review this and determine how we can implement it, both in general and specifically for the username in question. I cannot adequately address this at the moment, as I'm already overcommitted with deletion policy update and execution, which I'm behind on as well. (I'd intended to have a draft Wikiquote:Deletion review established by now, and I already have two test cases, one of which is this situation.) I'm hoping that after the current storm of deletion changes passes (after 29 September), we can all spend a little time considering this issue. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I had missed that link in the earlier comments. I do think the page is poorly named, but looking through it, even if we adopted that policy as it's written there, I'm not sure it would make things any better. Particularly, the bit about "Chang[ing] references to your former username to be references to your replacement username;" does this mean just updating old talk page signatures and such, or should it include removing references from the Wikiquote: namespace for pages like "Votes for deletion" and/or "Vandalism in progress"? With a case like this one, where the page went to VFD and the original user's name and comments have been archived, how extensive does "changing references" get? Even if you grant the user the right to change their signature in their nomination and/or comments, but should they be allowed to change or remove the original nomination or comments, because they would connect the new user to the old one that way? (Not to mention that changing the page's title and references to "Some user's page" after the vote has been archived isn't very helpful for cataloging/retrieving the discussion, and what happens if this situation arises again?)

With certain other pages (speaking hypothetically now), what's to be done if a user has been brought up at, say, Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress or to some sort of mediation (which we don't have at present). It could certainly affect people's perception of a user if they were able to simply erase any trace of their account from these pages. These are all issues to be taken up if and when we work on some sort of policy for this, but I just want to mention them now, so they're not forgotten.

That said, I think that nearly all of this could have been avoided if, in the initial nomination or a later comment, it had simply been mentioned that the user wished to remove traces of the old username from the site, and explained why, instead of initially trying to claim that the standard Welcome message was spam. The attitude that we've been shown by Zacheus, both now and with the previous username, is hardly conducive to gaining support or favors (in particular, the apparent insistence to reply in a meaningful way to valid points or counterarguments, and the threat of "ask[ing] Danny" at the drop of a hat when their demand (not request) is not make instantaneously. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with about the Pandora's box this concept opens, which is why I've counseled patience while we look into the effect on Wikiquote, not just the specific user. It may be possible to address the specific case before digesting all of the ramifications, but I'm not prepared to propose anything at the moment. And I also agree with LrdChaos and others about the unhelpful, confrontational, and often confusing methods that this user has taken to tackle his apparent actual concern — the complete removal of any trace of his real name. I'm sure we will address this to everyone's eventual satisfaction, if not their timeframe. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zacheus keeps refering to LrdChaos revealing his true identity 3 times, but I feel a need to reiterate that it was only one time. If you click the links he's provided, you can see that it's actually the same one icident reformatted to appear as 3. The first one being the history of the talk page where LrdChaos first mentioned his previous username, the second one being the actual section of LrdChaos's username, and the third being a later history of LrdChaos's page. This is malicious, dishonest, and misleading. If anyone here should be blocked, it should be Zacheus. MJMyers2 15:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and blocking accounts of Darth Coldheart (talk · contributions), Silly Dan (talk · contributions), Kuralyov (talk · contributions) and Raul654 (talk · contributions)

Hello. A vandalism by Darth Coldheart (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log), Silly Dan (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log), Kuralyov (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) and Raul654 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) has occured. It was a mixture of vandalising and moving pages, and also with 2 new pages created with no valid content. I was granted sysop rights by dannyisme in the #wikimedia IRC channel, since there wasn't any admin here at the time of events. I reverted all te vandalism and blocked the formentioned users (which I suspected as sockpuppets of the same IP or real person) for 24 hours. --Dead3y3 12:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that my sysop access has been removed after I have completed the above actions. --Dead3y3 12:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out. I'm curious — how exactly did Danny determine whether any sysops were available? I saw no message on my talk page or any edit to this page before your first post announcing the resolution. As a sysop, I'd like to know how it is that I should watching for attempts to determine if I'm online. I'm especially concerned if there is an out-of-band system (like IRC) that sysops are now expected to monitor. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in "vanity" policy

During a routine link test in a post I made to a user talk page, I discovered that Wikipedia has changed w:Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines to w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The new policy recommends against using the word "vanity" and emphasizes conflicts of interest of all kinds, relegating "about me" pages to an oblique reference in the "Policy" section and a better but short mention in "Where vanity is allowed" at the very end. I haven't had time to carefully read the whole article, but unless I'm forgetting a Wikiquote policy page, I think we need to refresh ourselves on these changes, since we largely use WP's vanity standards. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive username

Niggerw (talk · contributions) has just been created. I have left him/her a note saying that they should choose another name. It is against username policy to have offensive names. Fys. Ta fys aym. 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do with it? Infinite block? Or ask Kalki to rename him? iddo999 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A stern copyright warning from Jimbo Wales

For those who aren't monitoring Jack Handey, an article suffering from repeated massive additions in disregard to copyright issues, I'd like to repost a warning that Jimbo Wales just posted to that article's talk page:

I am not joking

Back in May, I wrote this:

We can not quote what was nearly the entire body of his work, this is deeply inappropriate. A handful of representative quotes can be given, WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION AND PROPER REFERENCES (page numbers, editions, etc.)

--Jimbo Wales 16:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant it then and I mean it now, but let me make an additional remark. If this stuff comes back again, unsourced, unattributed, and excessive, I will not only delete it, I will ban the user who did it. When I say "a handful of representative quotes" I mean that too. We must respect copyrights.

The board was forced to close the French Wikiquotes by the unresponsiveness of the community there (there was not much of one) to our concerns about copyright violations. I would hate to see the same thing happen to English Wikiquote, which is a much more active project, and with an existing community who can enforce scholarly standards.--Jimbo Wales 18:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He also deleted the entire quote content of the article, which had 44 quotes at the time, not one of them properly sourced.

No copyright holder that I'm aware of has lodged any complaints about any of our articles, which is what I believe started the legal process that led to the fall of fr:Wikiquote. But we can't afford to be complacent about our relative obscurity (with respect to copyright holders). I get the impression that Jimbo may be willing to take unilateral action on a larger scale, or that the Foundation may be called to intervene here, if we don't step up our efforts to police copyright issues.

I hate raising issues for which I don't already have a well-constructed set of suggestions for, but I felt it better to mention it right away. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to Wikipedia we have many fewer articles (8,000-odd, compared to 1.3 million, many of which are themes or people out of copyright). There are two principle areas where we might run into copyright problems: (a) living people; (b) articles about media works (TV programmes, films, books etc). Perhaps we should be thinking about something like the Wikipedia 'Biographies of Living People' policy - creating a category for people still in copyright and another for works in copyright?

I know nothing of Jack Handey but it seems to me that he is in a rare category of someone who is very famous but has produced very little work, so that it is easy to argue that an extensive page is infringing his copyright. Fys. Ta fys aym. 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of comedians, people simply will not stop until they've quoted every single joke they can recall. To give you an idea:

1) Steven Wright: 303 quotes, 265 of them described only as one-liners from his standup routines.

2) Mitch Hedberg: 318 quotes, none sourced.

3) Dane Cook: 151 quotes, none sourced. And Cook's page didn't even have a copyvio tag on it.

Frankly, I think we should simply take the axe to these pages, arbitrarily choosing fixed numbers to keep and always erring on the safe side, whatever that could possibly be. We now have 19 pages tagged for copyvio. Since Dane Cook would make #20, I will volunteer to work between now and the end of November on six of these pages: Steven Wright, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Betty Edwards, Royksopp, Project Management and Gus Hansen. That will reduce the number to 14. If people volunteered to take even one of each of the remaining 14, we could make a serious effort at reducing all of the current potential copyvio articles. If we also continue our current practice of nominating new pages for copyvio, we could actually get this copyvio problem under better control and prove our seriousness about this to the powers-that-be. - InvisibleSun 22:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three things stop me from just eviscerating articles like Jimbo did: (A) weariness with my curmudgeonly deletion activity; (B) a preference to trim and/or source material, both of which are far more time-consuming than mass deletion; and (C) a belief that implementing a policy to encourage others to tackle this task is more important (and far more scalable) than just a few of us doing all this work, especially considering that it's the same small group of editors doing nearly all the other maintenance work. I'm afraid that what we'll accomplish is wearing out the handful of frequent editors both with the additional work and the inevitable complaints from editors who want these complete catalogs, copyright be damned. (We've lost too many regular editors over the past 18 months — including several sysops — largely, I suspect, to exhaustion and/or loss of interest.) I'm also afraid that we aren't gaining editors fast enough who are willing to live by Mediawiki policies. I don't really fret losing editors who believe in violating copyrights at every opportunity as a way to "stick it to the man", but we don't have as robust a set of editors as Wikipedia, even proportionally speaking. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can offer this: since I've learned to use AutoWikiBrowser with Wikiquote, I can do mass edits on articles fairly quickly. If others start regularly tagging articles with copyvio notices, I can sweep such categorized articles every week or two, and if nothing has been done since the tagging, I can make a quick, drastic edit to each article or offending section, like deleting all "Unsourced". We could then warn editors, when tagging the articles, that they have X days to do something before the axe falls. (This is similar to WP's questionable-image deletion practice.) I'm not crazy about this, because it's an informal process that relies on a single person's activity (very bad for a wiki), but it might work in the short term at least and possibly get people to wake up to the problems of copyvio and sourcing. Let me know if anyone thinks this makes sense. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should decide on a clear policy with regard to unsourced quotes (there's no clear policy as far as I know). The main question is whether unsourced quotes should generally be allowed to remain (without a time limit, but maybe with a banner that urges sourcing) until someone would hopefully source them, or whether we should have a policy of removing unsourced quotes (after a warning). Perhaps we should vote on this, or invite editors from other wikimedia projects to discuss this further, because a decision to remove unsourced quotes will have a huge effect. Additionally, I personally think that the terminology that we're using as the title of unsourced sections (to differentiate from s sourced section) is wrong. The way it is right now is that we generally use a section titled "Attributed" for unsourced quotes. The way it should be IMHO is that an "Attributed" section should contain quotes that are hearsay but are still sourced, i.e. for cases where it's uncertain whether the quote is real, but a source that details where it came from is given. In other words, the reference for a quote in the "Attributed" section is assumed to be the best reference that is possible to have for it, though it's still unclear whether the quote itself is correct. And an extra "Unsourced" section should include everthing that is neither in the "Sourced" section nor in the "Attributed" section, and for such an "Unsourced" section we might decide on a policy that it should be deleted after a warning and a time limit. Regarding copyvio, I don't have anything useful to say. It's sometimes not trivial to tell what should be considered "excessive" if there's no complaint from the copyrights holder, but I guess that we should delete clear cases of copyvio anyway. iddo999 03:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rezilartuen joke mischief

Looks like Wazzawazzawaz (talk · contributions) or his imitators are back again, this time as Rezilartuen (talk · contributions). Based on previous incidents of them switching between an IP and several nearly simultaneously created usernames, I would point out that we also have the following activity right about the same time as the joke question:

217.149.107.191 (talk · contributions), who is the only user besides sysops to whom Rezilartuen posted the joke question, engaged in a series of 28 edits to English proverbs, two of which were vandalistic, but the remainder of which were either clearly or arguably useful. (My initial suspicion is that this is just a relatively innocent bystander turning up in Recent Changes for Rezilartuen to harrass.)
Creation of new user Corriganrichard (talk · contributions), whose article Pestel I speedy-deleted (no meaningful content) because its entire content was "p.e.s.t.a.l".
New user Laforge (talk · contributions), whose created an ill-formatted article of putative Slovak proverbs on their user page, then moved it to Proverbs:Slovak. (Last time I saw this kind of moving around between article and user space, it seemed to have been an honest new-user error.)
Janeledesordre (talk · contributions), who has not made any apparent edits.

To summarize, I see no clear connection between any of these folks, but I want to give a heads-up just in case. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoaa! Some new user askes a harmless question---and---all these alligations!!! Thre real problem here seemes to be Jeffq, man he has a stick up his @ss! Welcome to Wikiquote 00:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that notion. This so called Jeffq has a problem. Reduzwaz 00:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate being right about this stuff. Although none of the possible editors I mentioned above have caused any further problems, a rapidly created set of other usernames immediately went about vandalizing pages and insulting other editors. InvisibleSun and I are in the process of blocking them. How predictable and boring. Current new additions are:
- Whoawhoawho (talk · contributions)
- Como te llamas (talk · contributions)
- Help me out!!! (talk · contributions)
- Reduzwaz (talk · contributions)
- Loslonleys (talk · contributions)
- LnvisiblSun (talk · contributions)
- Qffej (talk · contributions)
- Welcome to Wikiquote (talk · contributions)
The only thing I'm a bit puzzled over is why their IPs aren't being blocked, unless it's either (A) one person quickly changing IPs, or (B) a coordinated attack from multiple systems. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd like to thank Fys for doing much of the vandalism reversion during this attack. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Loslonleys

This account was created and made only one edit. Then, User:JeffQ leaves a welcome message. The account does nothing. Next, JeffQ leaves a warning. Again, the account does nothing. Then 'out of the blue Jeffq blockes him (that rhymes!) Anyhow, someing needs to look into this. Thanks 195.226.230.58 00:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is misrepresenting the situation. The edit made by Loslonleys (talk · contributions) was a post to my talk page starting with "Man you're a JERK" and going on to do exactly what the Wazz vandal has done before under other usernames: pretend to be someone else criticizing editors' reactions. My two edits were first to add the welcome message, in case this user was actually editing in good-faith (a premise stretched by the insult and not supported by the vandal pattern) and then added a warning, as I've done for other users who may or may not be involved in a pattern-vandal situation, that their account use is coinciding with an active multi-account disruption, and in this case, to ask them to review various WQ pages on etiquette. By the time I'd finished these posts, a full-blown Wazz attack was underway, making it extremely likely that this user was just one of the many participating. At that point, InvisibleSun and I started blocking the rapid-fire creation of vandal/disruption users. If I or InvisibleSun have made any errors in this process, the users are invited to request unblocking on their talk pages. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Clean

First off I would like to apologize to everyone.

Now the explanation,

This may seem shocking, but the recent vandalism (Wazzawazzawaz etc.) has come from me, a Wikiquote Admin, who would like to remain anonymous. I did the vandalism in hopes of "getting into the mind of a vandal." And I can happily say I have learned a lot. In the next week, I will formulate a series of suggestions I found during my experiment and post them under an anonymous name. I won’t reveal what Admin account I use for real editing. Any vandalism coming after this message should be regarded as someone else because I am now ending the experiment. Thanks guys. Neutralizer 00:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but totally unconvincing. I'm prepared to be wrong on this, but I am sure this is just standard Wazz pretense, only trying to pass himself off as an admin. I was waiting for this account to pop up in the Wazz-capade, and my expectations were granted. It has now been blocked as well. I'm also watching several others created at the same time (as well as some created a while back in sync with other Wazz incidents), especially given the implied continuance of vandalism. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another Wazz connection. The alleged "joke" which Loslonleys sent Jeffq left me with a certain sense of déjà vu. After doing a little checking, it is identical to the joke which Wazzawazzawaz sent to Kalki on June 12, 2006. - InvisibleSun 01:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the experiment, and vandalism, is over. I’m happy to provide a list of accounts:

Rezilartuen Neutralizer Random Quotations GFS Help me out!!! Como te llamas Loslonleys LnvisiblSun Qffej Whoawhoawho Reduzwaz Welcome to Wikiquote

Mabey I’ll block one of them ;) GFS 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GFS is yet another of the new users who was potentially one of the Wazz sockpuppets. By responding here as if he were Neutralizer under another name, he has confirmed he is part of this disruption, so I have blocked him as well. Although it is another one I'm watching, I will not block Random Quotations (talk · contributions), named in GFS's list above, unless and until it is used for a similar pattern disruption. It could easily be an innocent user coincidentally created during the Wazz incident, and GFS/Neutralizer could simply be trying to provoke an overreaction. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffq, I'm telling the truth. Random Quotations 01:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[sigh] Okay, Random Quotations has now self-identified as Neutralizer/GFS, and so joins the block parade. I sincerely hope you aren't telling the truth, Neutralizer/GFS/Random, because if you are, it's the most grotesque violation of w:WP:POINT (and its implicit equivalent for all Wikimedia projects) that I've ever witnessed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InvisibleSun has now also blocked Mi nombre es Heraldo (talk · contributions), an account created back on 15 June 2006, with the summary "Account created as part of multiple-user vandalism", after it was used to vandalize this page minutes after "Random Quotations" posted above. Heraldo's previous edits were suspicious, in that they included posting questions about edits (in Spanish) to users not involved in the edits but who showed up in Recent Changes, a frequent modus operandus of Wazz. I wouldn't necessarily consider this compelling for a permanent block, but I can see InvisibleSun's point, and the user can always appeal the block on his talk page. (Despite the likelihood this is also Wazz, I suppose I was foolish enough to post a block notice in my fractured Spanish, on the off-chance this is a honest but confused non-English speaker. Yeah, I know "Nanook's Revenge" isn't Spanish. Oh, well.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a nearly verbatim "admission" from this same editor—one of Wiki's most prolific—and unrepentant—vandals/impersonators/puppetmasters. RadioKirk 22:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MASSIVE CROSS WIKI TROLLING ATTACK

A massive cross-wiki troling attack is in full force. TRUST NO ONE -Nyarlathotep 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see...How can I get a rollback button on my mono? DragonFire1024 23:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy and past your Wikinews monobook.js. Nyarlathotep 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might be stupid...but how lol. I used my mono once and was unsuccessful...I also had Bawolff add my pretty background on my Wikinews...DragonFire1024 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this current attack includes cross-project user impersonation, with the impersonating vandals posting messages on sysop pages telling them to confirm their identity, in an obvious attempt to stir up confusion and alarm. The best approach to this is to stick to our individual projects and tackle the vandalism as it occurs. I am taking some proactive blocking actions against likely impersonators on Wikiquote, including Nyarlathotep and DragonFire1024 above, as their new creation and edits following this pattern. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I demand you unblock User:Nyarlathotep and User:DragonFire1024 I'll verify on my Wikinews talk page. --DragonFire1024

I have requested advice on better handling of these attacks from the Meta folks at m:Vandalism reports#Multi-user, multi-pattern, cross-project vandal "tester". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't expect permanent blocks on IPs to be entirely appropriate response to most vandals, long-term blocking of User:65.78.87.120 might reduce some of the nuisance edits from this particular vandal, as this might be a permanently assigned IP, and complaints to abuse@rcn.com might also be effective. ~ Kalki 03:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious to see if other projects were also being attacked tonight and discovered that Wikispecies had been hit by vandals. Among them was 65.78.87.120 - InvisibleSun 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that each sysop check for his/her username (or similar variations) on the various projects to see if this vandal has registered it for use in these anti-sysop attacks. If we find some of these, we should collect them per project and negotiate with each project to inform them of the impersonation. I say "negotiate" because we can't just log on to another project and tell them, since that is exactly how this "Wazz" vandal stirs up trouble. We must first confirm for each project that the person reporting from Wikiquote is indeed who they say they are, either through CheckUser or using a simultaneous-edit trick like the one I used to demonstrate to n:User:DragonFire1024 that n:User:Jeffq is the same person as (q:)User:Jeffq. (I'm open to other ideas that are less drastic or complicated, too!) We shouldn't assume that these impersonations have already been blocked for vandalism, because one of Wazz's patterns is to create usernames that he doesn't use in the current attack, but saves for later use. (See Coming Clean above for how User:Mi nombre es Heraldo was used in this way.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm not enough of a target for vandals; I was able to register this name on the other projects with no trouble. I've added a section to my userpage here that links to the userpages of my accounts on the other projects (which do the same thing). Hopefully this will be enough of a precaution, though I don't really participate in any other project except Wikipedia. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks

It seems we have a major attack taking place by user: Adi's Breast. DragonFire1024 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now permanently blocked and I think all the vandalism has been put right. Fys. Ta fys aym. 23:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cache flush

Can someone please trigger an early rebuild of Special:Uncategorizedpages? I've now categorized almost all of what remains there, and I'd like to see what's really left. 121a0012 03:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]