Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/013

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Institutional account[edit]

In similar vein, user account Hovhanesscentre appears to be representing and editing on behalf of an organization rather than an individual. Again, the edits seem benign but the situation poses a dangerous precedent. I think we ought to formalize the policy at WQ:POLICY#Behavior_guidelines as suggested, and also annotate it at WQ:U#Inappropriate usernames where it says "Usernames that promote a company: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked." ~ Ningauble 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ningauble (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
m:Role account also applies here. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocked as a m:Role account. Cirt (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on User talk:[edit]

There seems to be an edit war going on at User talk: Looking at the talk page history, the page has gone through multiple reverts and reversions. The reverting is going no where, and the problem seems to be this warning given by administrator Kalki (talk · contributions) to More information at User_talk:UDScott#User_69.64.213.146. Would be good to let others know about this incase action is needed at some point, RyanCross @ 07:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we allow editors (even IPs) to remove warnings at their pleasure. There's no actual harm being done by doing so; the warnings are still there in the page's history, and constantly restoring the warnings does nothing but further exacerbate the situation. EVula // talk // // 16:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright, just making sure. :) Thanks, RyanCross @ 21:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we reject the Wikipedia policy of allowing messages to be deleted from user talk pages (the exceptions would be vandalism, spam and threats). I've sometimes come across users on Wikipedia who have never been blocked despite committing scores of vandalisms and receiving many warnings. Every time these users received warnings, they deleted them. It's all well to say that they still have a readable history, but it's not exactly surprising when action is never taken against them. Our policy, as seen at Wikiquote:Talk page#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?, allows users to delete messages from their talk pages. On the other hand, we have also expressed the wish to keep warnings or blocking notices, as seen at Wikiquote:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? in the following passage:

"To request deletion of your user page, add {{db|user page}} to the page, optionally explaining why you want the page deleted. Provided that the page does not contain evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept, such pages are almost always deleted. If a user page and user talk page were deleted because a contributor left, it may be restored by a sysop if the contributor returns, particularly if the history contains evidence of policy violations."

If we allow warnings to be blanked, I think it likely that sysops patrolling Recent Changes will keep giving first warnings to people who have been warned before. What reason would a patroller have to review each user's talk page history? We tend to go by what we see (or don't see) and take action based on that. - InvisibleSun 22:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tried using the Editnotice trick to put a permanent mark on the IP's talk page, but it didn't work. (for those that don't know, an Editnotice page is a template that appears even when you're editing the page; it's very handy, and can be done by registered users, but apparently not by IPs; to see an example, check out w:User talk:EVula/Editnotice) EVula // talk // // 22:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with InvisibleSun on this, especially in the case of unregistered users - see the discussion on my Talk page. ~ UDScott 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
InvisibleSun (talk · contributions) makes some good points above. Perhaps we should continue this discussion at Wikiquote talk:Talk page, with the possibility of modifying Wikiquote:Talk page#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?. Cirt (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit by an admin needed[edit]

Please see Talk:Seed of Chucky#Protection. Thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. ~ UDScott 14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. — RyanCross (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

More protection reasons for MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown[edit]

I've added more protection reasons for MediaWiki:Protect-dropdown. If anybody thinks there should be changes made, please say so here, and we'll discuss your suggestion. — RyanCross (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Good additions. There some wiki-code that you can put on there so that it automatically sorts some of that stuff (ie: you won't see "User request within own user space" unless you're in the user: namespace, etc), but just getting it off of the defaults is a good start. :) EVula // talk // // 21:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup to MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown[edit]

I cleaned-up MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown a bit. I wasn't sure why we had "Vandalism/test page" when the two are two very different reasons. Also, why do we have a "No quotes" reason for both, speedy and proposed deletions? Shouldn't we only use one? If not, shouldn't we have specifications on when to use what? If anyone thinks changes need to be made, please feel free to say so. — RyanCross (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, should we use "Speedy deletion" and "Proposed deletion", or should we use acronyms instead (i.e. "SD" and "PROD")? — RyanCross (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I like spelling it out; it's more newbie-friendly (the same reason I changed the VfD line to be the full text for the VfD title). Not sure what you mean by "specs on when to use what"; if you mean a policy page, yes, but if you mean a note in the dropdown reason itself, no; too much clutter. EVula // talk // // 05:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is... something, somewhere, should say when to use "Speedy deletion: No quotes" and "Proposed deletion: No quotes", so basically what you said about the policy page. Either that, or we remove one of the two. — RyanCross (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Although the underlying reason may be the same, "Proposed" is for {{Prod}} and "Speedy" is for {{Db}} or immediate deletion on sight. I don't see any problem with the redundancy. Sometimes a reviewer will prod an article with the intent to give the contributor a few days to add quotes; and other times articles with no quotes are speedy deleted as completely inappropriate.
"Speedy deletion—No quotes" was added to the list without amending the Speedy deletions policy page, but it reflects consensus practice. At the time we had a rash of encyclopedic articles (or Wikipedia rejects) submitted with no intention of adding quotes, and we ran out of patience. ~ Ningauble 14:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Keeping both reasons seems appropriate. — RyanCross (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletedtext update[edit]

I've made MediaWiki:Deletedtext more user-friendly (no surprise). I've included links for undeletion and salting, and I've added a handy link to view any broken redirects that are left after deleting a page. — RyanCross (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. :) EVula // talk // // 18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. — RyanCross (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Does not appear to be appropriate use of a userpage - seems to be cut and paste from IMDB... Cirt (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tagged copyvio and reported to WQ:VFD.--Jusjih 02:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request (4 users)[edit]

There are more, but the first one is the editor responsible for the slew of vandalism that I just deleted. The second is actually the entire reason I'm an admin in the first place. The third is just another editor who has created the same vandal categories.

There's no doubt that they're all related; I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for the underlying IP(s) so we can block them. EVula // talk // // 07:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Update Add Popdiddle (talk · contributions) to the pile. EVula // talk // // 09:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I cannot get the IP matched or related to Littoral (talk · contributions). The IPs of other three users are entirely different. Do you still want the IPs somewhere private?--Jusjih 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Nah; if they're unrelated, then it's either a group of people or someone hopping from IP to IP; either way, zeroing in on an IP won't have the effect I was hoping for. Thanks for checking though, Jusjih. EVula // talk // // 06:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pikachu and Arbok[edit]

Pikachu is an acknowledged sock of the former. These should both probably be blocked. They appear to be single-purpose trolling/vandalism/disruption-only accounts. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken action to block Pikachu permanently. Arbok is currently under a six-month block. - InvisibleSun 23:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
That seems appropriate. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Max Parrott[edit]

Max Parrott (talk · contributions) - See all the contribs for vandalism which needs to be dealt with by admins. As this is a chronic issue - is there another way to address this, instead of just dealing with it each time it comes up? Cirt (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Lots of cleanup by admins is needed now. Also, I think some checkuser investigation is warranted, on this account and prior ones with same pattern of vandalism. This account was created on 7 February 2009, then waited as a sleeper so it could be a confirmed account. Cirt (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Which other accounts should be checked? If you do not want to answer here, please email me for privacy and I will check them for you.--Jusjih 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Aphaia (talk · contributions) knows more of the history, but if you look into the deleted history here, among other similar obscene pages, you will find more information about this chronic vandal sockmaster. Cirt (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I reported it also to Meta, as it is cross-wiki vandalism. See here. Apparently the IPs are not the same because the vandal uses open proxies. Hopefully this is being discussed/coordinated on the checkuser mailing list. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


This was a useful template that was deleted for no good reason. also, it can't be recreated. (anon) —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

I explained a bit at the IP's talk page, though of course feel free to discuss if Checkusers and Administrators want to change this. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should undelete it with changes?--Jusjih 01:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree it may be useful to undelete it, with a model after w:Template:Sockpuppet, that way the various categorization schemes can be used to keep track of chronic problems. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the full history of the issue, but my impression is that such tagging led to unnecessary Wikidrama. I am not aware of a problem with current practice that needs to be fixed. I am open to persuasion but, frankly, I find it difficult to take seriously a request from an anonymous IP wanting to tag user accounts. ~ Ningauble 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

it is a useful template. make changes but there is no reason to have it deleted and unable to create. i dont want to tag any accounts but i saw it deleted and it would be useful in the future. (anon) —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

I agree with Cirt. We should probably have our own sockpuppet template(s) to mark which accounts are socks of others, and which is the sockpuppeteer. We have had several vandalism attacks from (obvious) sockpuppets the last several months, and these templates could be of good use to keep track of these socks. — RyanCross (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I created {{Sockpuppet}} with input from en.wikipedia. Some of the categories and dependent templates may need tweaking, but otherwise this should prove to be quite useful. Cirt (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Suspected Wikiquote sockpuppets of Bubbaloo and Bubbaloo (talk · contributions) for how this template works in action. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I plan to work on the indicated tweaking over the next day or two. If anybody else wants to contribute to this as well, please drop me a note so we don't work at cross-purposes. Unless anyone objects, I am going to take out the "pp" template stuff. It can be re-added in a more comprehensive manner if we later decide to adopt Wikipedia's protection tagging schema. I will retain and clean up the template "documentation" template stuff, as this functionality has been on my wish list for some time. ~ Ningauble 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, this would be most helpful. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Four Quartets[edit]

The Four Quartets are poems written by T.S. Eliot. He died in 1965. They are not in the public domain, and are still held under Harcourt Brace's copyright that was renewed before his death. The statement is five lines at most from a work, I believe? However, as poetry this is a bit more complicated. I am not a regular here. I only followed the link from the en.wikipedia page. I am hoping that someone can handle this properly. I can be reached at my en.wikipedia talk page. Ottava Rima 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Per an SPI case at enwiki a CheckUser was requested, CU evidence (here) and editing habits confirm that User:33ohmygad is one of many abusive sockpuppets at enwiki. After checking with the SUL utility I figured I would alert you guys that one of the 20+ accounts has registered here and am requesting an indefinite block on the account. Thanks, Stepshep 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


We could use some help in the OTRS queue (the place where people land when they e-mail us). I'm posting this on the Administrators' noticeboard because you guys are pretty trusted and around quite a bit. :-)

Basically what it is is just an inbox – we get mail, then you login and look through it, picking the tickets you want to answer and answering them. We also have a few boilerplates in the queue for common queries. You don't have to do tickets you don't want to and if you aren't sure on how to respond, other agents can help you out.

If anyone would like to do it or has any questions about it, feel free to e-mail me or just apply directly on m:OTRS/volunteering. Cbrown1023 talk 01:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspected open proxies[edit]

I have created a category Category:Suspected open proxies to tag suspected IPs, especially those used by the "Nice site, admin" twerp. I am inclined to give such IPs a six month block, especially if they actually come to be used more than once for vandalism. ~ Kalki 11:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter[edit]

The experimental mw:Extension:AbuseFilter has been enabled at Special:AbuseFilter, pursuant to a discussion at VP. Please consider the need to develop policies for this new tool before proceeding much further. Some issues that should probably be spelled out explicitly are:

  1. Who is authorized to edit or view filters? [Whatever has been done in this regard has not been discussed and is not transparent.]
  2. Should testing of new (or substantially modified) filters in "log only" mode be required for a certain period of time? Can peer review substitute for extended testing in some cases. [Current filters have had actions enabled immediately after creation, without so noting in the filter notes.]
  3. Which actions will filters be permitted to perform? [We can probably follow Wikipedia's lead on this for now.]

This can be a very useful tool for Wikiquote, and should save a lot of time cleaning up after persistent vandals. It is also very powerful, and should be handled with care. I will start a Wikiquote:Abuse filter page (sooner or later, if nobody beats me to it) for addressing these and related issues. In the meantime, I encourage administrators to monitor Special:AbuseLog regularly for false positives, and familiarize yourselves with how to shut one off if it runs wild. ~ Ningauble 15:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio report at Robin Hobb?[edit]

There is a complaint on Talk:Robin Hobb alleging that the selection of quotes is copied from another site. I have not attempted to compare sites in detail or to ascertain priority. Should we put a {{Copyvio}} on it first, investigate further, or refer it to (I dunno who)? ~ Ningauble 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd throw up a {{copyvio}} right away - won't hurt to have the page corralled until an investigation is done. The DMCA safe harbor does require that we act swiftly to respond to complaints raised. BD2412 T 01:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected edit request[edit]

Can an admin edit User:Essjay and User talk:Essjay to convert them to {{Softredirect}}s. Just needs to replace the current code with {{softredirect|:w:User:Essjay}}. Thanks. MBisanz 23:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Cbrown1023 talk 23:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection at Al Gore[edit]

User:Aphaia protected this page indefinitely as a "high traffic page." I see nothing in the history that suggests any unusual vandalism problem, and I want to make some changes. w:User:WillOakland 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the protection, which no longer appears to be needed. - InvisibleSun 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "I Will F uucckk your face problem"[edit]

Well we got a problem with the user called "I Will F uucckk your face". On April 7 he edited a lot of threads with nonsense like "fuck this asshole". Is is possible to get all the information that he ruined back? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ZergFFS (talkcontribs) on April 7, 2009 at 22:19 (UTC)

All of the vandalism has now been reversed. - InvisibleSun 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

VfD Macedonia (region) needs action[edit]

Unless someone provides a rationale for keeping it open, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Macedonia (region) is past-due to be closed. Would an uninvolved administrator please review it? As a participant in the debate, I do not feel confident assessing whether some of the arguments address comminity standards in a meaningful way (as opposed to just being likes/dislikes), nor assessing the appropriate weight to give the votes of contributors whose participation has been significant but narrow in scope. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 16:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Closed by BD2412. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 17:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered user pages[edit]

Is there any policy or precedent regarding creating user pages with names that do not correspond to a registered user account? See e.g. User:Ruuta 25. ~ Ningauble 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would think they should be summarily speedy deleted. Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. I did, so now there is precedent. ~ Ningauble 16:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think someone is trying to hack my account![edit]

Someone from the IP address recently sent a "lost password" request to Wikiquote. I was notified of this by automated e-mail.

I have never requested a temporary/lost password from this site, and the IP address above is not mine. Can someone tell me what is going on here? --Eastlaw 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is likely that a vandal was trying to impersonate you, but as the notice for such requests only are sent to registered email addresses, I believe that simply ignoring the request will keep things in their present state. ~ Kalki 00:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That is what I have done. I have not used the temporary password. I only use my unified login. Thank you for your prompt response! --Eastlaw 00:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Savage[edit]

Most of the quotes here are not sourced. Is there a WP:RS standard here? I notice that RS is softly redirected to Wikiedia. Is it appropriate to remove unsourced material on this project? --Murray F. White 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced and inadequately sourced quotes and prodded the page. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --Murray F. White 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Recruiting more users[edit]

We need more users here to help out with pages like Transformers Animated. I can't edit them alone.(Dennys 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Protected page[edit]

I went to Matthew Sanchez and was going to make an edit but noticed this: Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it. 10:05, 22 October 2008 Bluemarine (Talk | contribs) protected "Matthew Sanchez" ‎ (Matthew (Matt) Sanchez moved to Matthew Sanchez) (hist). Can someone tell me why Bluemarine, aka Matthew Sanchez himself, is protecting a page of which he is the subject? It seems a conflict of interest, especially considering all the editing to the page he has done. And that further leads to why is an admin, assuming he is one since he's able to protect a page, abusing this function? Of course, I ask this not being too familiar with Wikiquote policies, only those of en.Wikipedia and Commons, but surely they aren't that much different? - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 06:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Bluemarine is not an admin here and never was one by the looks of it. I'm not sure how he was able to protect the page, yet, it's still logged. And I agree, it seems to be a COI, editing an article about yourself, and in this case, editing it excessively. But anyway, I've unprotected the article, as I didn't see any reason why it should have been semi-protected indefinitely, or why it was done in the first place. But since that's taken care of, feel free to go on editing the page. — RyanCross (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The log only shows that the page was already protected when Bluemarine moved it. It was originally protected 08:32, 24 July 2008 by Quillercouch, who was then an administrator. Unfortunately, the log does not knit together actions before and after a move like the page history does, but only shows that the current incarnation of the page was created in a protected state when it was moved.
But anyway, I am not sure indefinite semiprotection was the best call. We shall see whether edit warring erupts again, now that the protection has been lifted. Long-term problems with the corresponding Wikipedia article[1] are not encouraging. ~ Ningauble 13:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification y'all! (that's "you all" here in Mississippi) :] - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks, Ningauble, for your help in this little investigation. — RyanCross (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed... please unprotect the talk page of the article too. Thanks. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 16:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done EVula // talk // // 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Electronic games[edit]

Someone needs to create such a page because theres List of TV shows etc. Also there are two vandals on the loose.(Dennys 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC))

You mentioned this list at User talk:EVula#List of Electronic Games, yet you never followed up to my response. List of television shows exists because TV shows generally do have quotable materials; electronic games, with some notable exceptions, do not.
Also, just saying "two vandals are on the loose" isn't helpful. Diffs are. EVula // talk // // 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Sanchez again[edit]

An IP made a huge edit to this page. No doubt it's Matthew himself based off of this edit he just left on my en.WP talk page where he accuses me of "vandalizing the Matt Sanchez quotes" and that I "keep putting in quotes that are not sourced and are poorly edited". However, the only edits I have ever made to that page was adding a Conflict of Interest tag. I've never "vandalized" anything nor have I ever touched any of the content that was already in the page. I've got no issues with adding properly sourced content, but he whitewashed it by removing properly sourced content and changed sources to reflect his own POV. The sockpuppeting also should be addressed. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 05:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No edits to the page since then, no edits prior to that for seven days - does not look overly disruptive at the moment. If it crops up again, could be time for a longer-term semi-protection on the page. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that this one needs an indef semi-protection as it doesn't appear Sanchez gets the point about sockpuppeting. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request[edit]

Due to harassment and cross-wiki harassment. See history of my user page and talk page. See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, which is where the listed IPs/usernames are from.--Otterathome 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. AncientUni (talk · contributions)
  2. Kaiman1023 (talk · contributions)
  3. LOTRrules (talk · contributions)
  4. LOTRrules2 (talk · contributions)
  5. LOTRrules3 (talk · contributions)
  6. SonGoku786 (talk · contributions)
  7. (talk · contributions)
  8. (talk · contributions)
  9. (talk · contributions)
  10. (talk · contributions)
  11. (talk · contributions)
  12. (talk · contributions)
  13. (talk · contributions)
  14. (talk · contributions)
  15. (talk · contributions)
  16. (talk · contributions)
  17. (talk · contributions)
  18. (talk · contributions)
  19. (talk · contributions)
  20. (talk · contributions)
  21. (talk · contributions)
  22. (talk · contributions)
  23. (talk · contributions)
  24. (talk · contributions)
  25. (talk · contributions)
  26. (talk · contributions)
  27. (talk · contributions)
  28. (talk · contributions)
  29. (talk · contributions)
None of the named accounts exists at en.wikiquote, and it looks like there was only a single instance of IP vandalism/harassment on your talk page here. I do not see how checkuser is going to help your situation. What remedy are you seeking? ~ Ningauble 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This is to flush out any further sockpuppets the user may have created to attack/harass me.--Otterathome 10:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Have any of the above accounts made any edits on this project? Cirt (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
According to all of those Contributions links above, only 1 of those listed has edited and it was a personal attack at Otter's page. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 07:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: As these all seem to have been already dealt with / identified / exposed through the process at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, they could be tagged with {{sockpuppet|LOTRrules|blocked}} -- that is, if they edit in the same basic disruptive w:WP:DUCK pattern as on en.wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Could administrators and CheckUsers here please confirm that I am not banned-user Poetlister or in league with Poetlister. Please see my talk page for more details. I am still being accused of suspicious behavior here [2]. If the community believes I should leave, then I will leave. Thank you. Ripberger 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers don't usually check things on requests to "prove your innocence". Cirt (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If the problem still continuing? If not, I will not check.--Jusjih 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Text and tools on edit screen[edit]

Y'all will have noticed that when the new Creative Commons terms were added to the edit screen recently, our project's customized text and tools disappeared. Having tracked down what happened (talk), I am going to restore the custom content later today or tomorrow, as real life permits.
Subsequently, and subject to discussion, I also think some of our custom language about sourcing etc. could be improved. ~ Ningauble 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY   I have restored customizations to the edit screen at MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary and tweaked MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. Further improvements can be discussed on their talk pages. ~ Ningauble 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dennys indefinitely blocked[edit]

Dennys (talk · contributions) has been indefinitely blocked, chiefly for this edit, but it'd been a long time coming based on several comments he'd been leaving me. I also just received four emails (titled "Fuck you", "I will get my revenge against you", "I will fuck your face", and a repeat performance of "Fuck you") from him, so he's been reblocked with email disabled.

Please do not unblock him without asking me first... though I really doubt that'd happen. It's just more that I'm not the most unbiased admin when it comes to the guy, so I thought I'd get an extra set of eyes on this. EVula // talk // // 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Having observed the user's increasing belligerence, I was about ready to send a strong warning and back it up with administrative action myself. While I think the situation could have been handled more diplomatically, I doubt the final outcome would have been any different. He has had ample opportunity for learning to participate constructively, but apparently lacks the will or the capacity. ~ Ningauble 12:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it probably could have been handled more diplomatically; I'll willingly admit that I was at the end of my rope with him. However, telling me to sign off, then retire, and then threaten me... no.
If it were a constructive editor that had been doing this, I probably would have handed him off to someone else (or at least let the comments slide right by). But considering the fact that he's been fighting everything about WQ:LOQ and just all-around not understanding the point of Wikiquote (ie: to quote memorable lines, not every little thing that anyone has ever said), I don't feel like I've somehow wounded the project. (there was also the bizarreness that was the Lightsaber Duels VfD) EVula // talk // // 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the block, good judgment. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with the block, which was probably inevitable. - InvisibleSun 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up to any admins that may catch any of his future accounts: please make sure to disable email when blocking him. Yesterday I got no less than 38 emails from him (most with just the subject line of just "fuck you"). While I find them funny, I can easily imagine him shifting his focus to other folk just for agreeing with my "illegal block". Thanks. :) EVula // talk // // 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser requests[edit]

I would like to request a check for each of the following groups of pattern vandals:

  1. JohnCCCCC (talk · contributions)
  2. JohnCCCCC (talk · contributions)
  3. JohnCC (talk · contributions)
  4. JohnC (talk · contributions)
  5. JohnBBBB (talk · contributions)
  6. JohnBBB (talk · contributions)
  7. JohnB (talk · contributions)
  8. JohnAAAAAAA (talk · contributions)
  9. John AAAAAA (talk · contributions)
  10. John AAA (talk · contributions)
  11. John JJJ (talk · contributions)

  1. Dennys revenge 10 (talk · contributions)
  2. Dennys revenge 9 (talk · contributions)
  3. Dennys revenge 7 (talk · contributions)
  4. Dennys revenge 8 (talk · contributions)
  5. Dennys revenge 6 (talk · contributions)
  6. Dennys revenge 4 (talk · contributions)
  7. Dennys revenge 3 (talk · contributions)
  8. Dennys revenge 1 (talk · contributions)
  9. Dennys revenge 5 (talk · contributions)
  10. Dennys revenge 4 (talk · contributions)
  11. Dennys revenge 2 (talk · contributions)
  12. Dennys revenge (talk · contributions)
  13. Dennys (talk · contributions)

- InvisibleSun 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And more in the same vein:
  1. The revenge of Dennys (talk · contributions)
  2. The revenge of Dennys 1 (talk · contributions)
  3. The revenge of Dennys 2 (talk · contributions)
  4. The Revenge of Dennys 3 (talk · contributions)
  5. The revenge of Dennys 4 (talk · contributions)
  6. The revenge of Dennys 5 (talk · contributions)
~ Ningauble 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Safferon Spano (talk · contributions) just bombarded me with 35 emails of the same variety that Dennys would send me. EVula // talk // // 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Add Evula is a nazi (talk · contributions) to the list. EVula // talk // // 23:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The "John series" had similar IPs but no usernames ever shared any single IP. The "Dennys series", "The revenge of Dennys series" and Evula is a nazi (talk · contributions) also had similar IPs, but the only shared identical IP at different time involved Safferon Spano (talk · contributions), Dennys revenge 5 (talk · contributions), Dennys revenge 3 (talk · contributions), Dennys revenge 1 (talk · contributions), and Dennys (talk · contributions) that are all blocked.--Jusjih 03:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Can we do a range-block? I can't imagine that I'm the only one getting tired of deleting Denny's attack pages. :) EVula // talk // // 05:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
How does the CU report look against I blocked a couple more EVula-named Dennys socks today, and then the IP turned up. EVula // talk // // 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to disallow usernames with "denny" or "evula" in them by using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? My only concern is that it might affect legitimate contributors named Denny. --Ixfd64 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is too easy to invent variations that evade detection by blacklists and filters. The abuse filter has blocked more than 75 edits by this problem child, but has not curtailed his obsessive behavior. ~ Ningauble 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only that, but we've already seen him switch usernames entirely with Safferon Spano. EVula // talk // // 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add Johnggg (talk · contributions) to the list... - mrmin123

Matt Sanchez[edit]

We have a serious problem at the Matt Sanchez Wikiquote page. There are unsourced quote that are constantly posted by vandalizing editors. Could we get a serious editor involved? Bluemarine 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite Bluemarine's heavily biased position here (as the subject of the article), Allstarecho is introducing lame (in both quality and in sourcing) quotes and removing other perfectly valid ones, plus removing easily verifiable facts (such as Sanchez being a journalist) and introducing new ones (such as Sanchez's middle name being Ayala).
This is a dispute that's carrying over from, near as I can tell, and it can go back there as far as I'm concerned; edit warring here will be dealt with swiftly, regardless of who may be "right." EVula // talk // // 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not "introducing" anything, only restoring to the previous version before Sanchez's attempted whitewashing. He's been doing it as a sockpuppet under several IP addresses, and now under his own Bluemarine user name. As can be seen in my latest edit summary there, I said to add new stuff but don't remove the other stuff, aka don't whitewash just because he doesn't agree with what's on a page about him. Conflict of interest indeed. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 21:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just looked at the porn content he keeps trying to whitewash. Every bit of it is sourced, including the Alan Colmes radio show transcript. I have restored that section. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with EVula that this is spillover from Wikipedia, but not just the dispute: the whole article. Wikiquote's purpose is not to document juicy biography or to report newsy tidbits, and I have not noticed that any of the commentary that appears in the article from time to time between reversions was particularly quoteworthy. This may be a silly question, but would the disputants consider it an acceptable resolution to this years-long edit war if the article were simply deleted? ~ Ningauble 22:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal by Ningauble (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
In light of Matt's continued whitewashing of the article, and admin failure to stop it, I agree as well... delete and salt it. - ALLSTRecho wuz here @ 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Both of you are acting like children. This is ridiculous. EVula // talk // // 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

One accepts the fact that certain topics tend to edit wars: Christianity, Mohammad and so on; but we maintain these pages for their evident value, which needs no further defense. But of the Matt Sanchez page, we have to ask ourselves: has there ever been an article where there has been such shrill insistence upon our attention — expecting us to drop all else, to referee its edit melodramas, agenda-mongering, control-freak policing and mutual sockpuppetry — and all for what? An article which, even at best, has never been much. Our patience has been exhausted. It's time to delete this page until its participants grow up. - InvisibleSun 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the (rather bold) step of deleting the article. Definitely consensus here that it's not worth the trouble, but in addition to than that, in looking over Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matt Sanchez, I noticed that the chief supporters were Poetlister, Cato, and Yehudi; as in, all three editors are the same person. This is just too much drama over a single article that, as InvisibleSun pointed out, isn't really worth much in the grand scheme of things.
Now I hope we can put this enormous waste of our time behind us. EVula // talk // // 00:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That was a rather bold step, as even without the bogus voting by Poetlister there was a majority in favor of keeping it, and I have restored the page. It certainly has been a problem page, which I personally have very little interest in, with both sides regularly pushing their agenda in petty ways, but I don't feel that this warrants the summary elimination of it. I personally would vote to retain it, with a cleanup of the existing quotes to conform to standard chronological arrangements. ~ Kalki 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem with the revert on the deletion; as noted, it was pretty bold, so I can't claim surprise or anything. ;) I just tossed it up at VfD; I really think we'd be better off without it (though I wouldn't be surprised if it garnered further character assassination of myself by Allstarecho on my talk page). EVula // talk // // 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruption at page Matthew Sanchez and User:Bluemarine[edit]

I have recently become an involved party at the page Matthew Sanchez as I have worked to cleanup the page per the comment from Kalki (talk · contributions) [3] at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matthew Sanchez. As such, it is probably for the best that I do not myself make administrator actions related to the subject of the page or the page itself, namely related to Bluemarine (talk · contributions) or the page Matthew Sanchez. However, I do note that it may be appropriate for Bluemarine (talk · contributions) to be blocked for edit-warring [4] [5] [6], prior history of IP socking on the page [7] [8] [9], and there is also the obvious SPA and COI issues. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I told him not to revert again or I blocked him. He reverted again. I blocked him.
Cause and effect. EVula // talk // // 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Good block. However, see the en.wikipedia Arbitration case Bluemarine, specifically Bluemarine banned, and Log of blocks and bans. Unfortunately, I fear a block of length one day will not be sufficient. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see the notice by EVula (talk · contributions). Agreed. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Page created which is obvious vandalism (speedy delete?)[edit]

Not sure about the procedure for doing this correctly, but the page Rocco Siffredi is blatant vandalism. User:InvisibleSun noted it earlier, now the original creator (as the only other thing he's done) has removed the notice. Needs speedy delete. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User only exists to add massive copyvios[edit]

User:Xeginy seems to exist wholly and solely for the purpose of importing as much text from every webcomic possible into Wikiquote. See all the contributions here: [[10]]. It has even been done to some articles that had been, at one point, pared down for copyright reasons; they're now just slowly getting bigger and bigger as this user keeps re-adding to them. I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, if an administrator maybe gave some sort of personalized warning about how important copyright issues to us here at Wikiquote? The importance of Wikiquote:Limits and Wikiquote:Quotability? I don't feel as if it would be appropriate for me to do so. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This user actually does show some degree of restraint with respect to copyrights. It could be much worse, and fair use limits for some genre are difficult to quantify. However, the articles do seem indiscriminately long with respect to quality. My advice to contributors whose enthusiasm leads to excess would be twofold: Consider that you are writing for the general public, not just fellow aficionados. If an article is so long that I spend more time hunting for the good bits than appreciating them when I find them, then Wikiquote has failed in its mission of finding them for me. ~ Ningauble 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like a friendly word of advice inspired some excellent re-editing. It is always better for a contributor who is enthusiastic about the subject and wants to do the right thing to do the trimming than for some bloody-minded administrator who doesn't appreciate the subject to hack at it with a meat cleaver. If only there were more editors like this — aficionados who want to show the subject in the best light rather than fanatics with no interest in being discriminating. ~ Ningauble 15:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would some admins check the history of this article[edit]

In checking recent changes, I came across this questionable reversion in the history of Ernst Kaltenbrunner (the IP most defnitely did not "vandalize," and should not have been accused of it--though it may have been a controversial set of changes): [[11]]. From what I gather, the IP's intent was to remove images that (I'm assuming) he considered to be loaded and NPOV in relation to their captions (given the controversial nature of the subject), and left the more appropriate, actually related images. From [before] to [after]. For example, the images of "Death" (i.e., the character Death) were removed from the article (a part of the removal I particularly support). This is not a fictional or poetic or artistic type of Wikiquote entry which allows us some interpretive/artistic leeway when choosing images -- this is Nazi history, and we should be careful (as I believe the IP realized).Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No one has seemed to notice this, so I thought I'd give it a bump.... Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried to address this A) at the article's talk page, B) by editing the article yourself, C) by addressing it with the editors involved... ? Cirt (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think that would be appropriate based on my experience level versus the experience level of the editor involved (especially after I looked through his edit history and noticed a tendency to m revert things as vandalism that weren't--especially on articles created by him, place a minor tag on every edit he's ever made, and very rarely leave edit summaries, and some interesting exchanges he'd had with other editors). I just thought that an admin may have a better judgment with respect to this. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 05:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Might be best to assume good faith in your first interaction, be bold and engage initially, and then seek out admin help if things go awry. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this suitable as a Topic page?[edit]

Looking through recent page creations, there is a high quality article at New World Order. However, it doesn't really seem to make sense as a Topic or article on its own. Its not clearly defined, and I'm not sure how it really comes together (is it quotes by and about right-wing America, anything applicable to post-September 11 politics, what is it?). It contains good quotes, but I'd like some of the admins to look at it and consider how appropriate it is as an article of its own...? Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a very odd page - the intro cites the first use of the phrase as being in the 1990s, but almost all of the quotes are from long before that, and have no clear relationship to the phrase. BD2412 T 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems that order in the world of Wiki is as intangible as order in the world at large. ~ Ningauble 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
So, um... does that mean we should nix this article (but make sure the quotes are / will be incorporated into their appropriate articles)? The Wikipedia link isn't even disambiguated by the creator of the page, and upon checking, I'm not sure if it even consistently applies to one of the Wikipedia articles on New World Order. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think the article should be deleted, but I think some ground rules should be adopted:
  1. Only quotations that specifically say "new world order" belong in the article, whether they come from a political figure or from a well-known conspiracy theorist. David Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower and John Maynard Keynes all have their own articles for quotations that are speculated to be about the NWO.
  2. Quotations should be verified from primary sources, or from secondary sources that are not promoting a conspiracy theory. Fake quotes are epidemic in conspiracy theory sources. w:User:WillOakland 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Will, I am not very knowledgeable in the subject matter, so I couldn't appropriately do a cleanup as you outline in (1) and (2), I'm wondering if you'd be up to tidying it, as you appear more knowledgeable in the specific considerations. I was tempted to question it in the first place as it looked like a conspiracy theory compilation and was put together rather oddly, appearing to be compiled by someone with a "lack of respect" for standard academic rigour, eg., "Speach, 27 mars 1922," but if you'd like to work on it, it would be greatly appreciated. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Move request for Federal Reserve[edit]

I have cleaned up this article, which was tagged for cleanup in 2007. Could someone please move it to Federal Reserve System to match the Wikipedia article? w:User:WillOakland 08:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ Ningauble 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"ass pus" vandal[edit]

An administrator might want to take care of Vorbis Lux (talk · contributions). --Ixfd64 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This manifestation of the twerp has now been blocked. ~ Kalki 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

High volume of duplicate/redundant categorization[edit]

Pipedreamergrey (talk · contributions) has been creating duplicate categories and placing articles in redundant categories by the hundreds. While I think this activity is basically well-intentioned, the user is ignoring messages on his talk page and continuing the activity at high volume, including reverting corrections. As an involved party having been reverted multiple times, I hesitate to act unilaterally and would appreciate some diplomatic input from other admins. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to be around, I went ahead and issued a final warning. When it was violated I placed a short block. ~ Ningauble 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed the offense, but you were certainly correct in blocking the editor after he ignored multiple warnings. BD2412 T 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
What a mess. I was too slow picking up on what was happening. ~ Ningauble 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Good block. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser discussion[edit]

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/EVula. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Users cannot edit their talk page when blocked[edit]

It appears that users cannot edit their own user talk page when blocked. Therefore, there is limited options for blocked users to request unblock. I think we should try to remedy this. After we have community support (and/or if there are no objections to this) we should file a request with the devs to change it on this wiki so that when a sysop blocks a user, they can check a box for the option whether or not that user should be allowed to edit their user talk page. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Side note: As a temporary fix, I added to the default text at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the following: Alternatively, you may also email to discuss the block. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support, as proposed, above. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support fine to me. --Aphaia 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I hadn't noticed that this wasn't already there. This is an absolute must of a feature, so I say go ahead and submit the bug for it. EVula // talk // // 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. ~ Kalki 15:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. ~ UDScott 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. - InvisibleSun 16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a must. Tiptoety talk 16:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - it works for Wikipedia, so why not here? --Ixfd64 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Common sense. BD2412 T 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. Pmlineditor  18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support (belatedly, I was out of town). Cbrown1023 talk 13:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Obvious supportJuliancolton | Talk 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support--Jusjih 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support of course. — RyanCross (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Has this been enabled? If not, I can file a bug. Tiptoety talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)