Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/022

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

QOTDs for 7 & 8 January 2013[edit]

The whole country is full of enterprise. Our common schools are diffusing intelligence among the people and our industry is fast accumulating the comforts and luxuries of life. ... It is not strange, however much it may be regretted, that such an exuberance of enterprise should cause some individuals to mistake change for progress and the invasion of the rights of others for national prowess and glory.
~ Millard Fillmore ~


There is a certain indolence in us, a wish not to be disturbed, which tempts us to think that when things are quiet, all is well. Subconsciously, we tend to give the preference to "social peace," though it be only apparent, because our lives and possessions seem then secure. Actually, human beings acquiesce too easily in evil conditions; they rebel far too little and too seldom. There is nothing noble about acquiescence in a cramped life or mere submission to superior force.
~ A. J. Muste ~


These quotes at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/January 7, 2013 & Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/January 8, 2013 will have to be placed on the project pages Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 7, 2013 & Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 8, 2013 rather than the talk pages by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

CU request for HomerHorn[edit]

Please consider investigating this spambot and sharing the results with the stewards. I think this one might be related to SallyIMHV at the English Wikiversity, for which I'll request a CU as well (here). Kind regards, Mathonius (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

All the accounts mentioned here are now locked. If anyone's interested, see m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Ntsamr for more information. Mathonius (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive editing query[edit]

I think when I was an admin here I would have reverted this without a second thought however I am not now so I'll leave it to the community. The archive in question and edit history is here. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

One does not need to be an administrator to undo inappropriate edits. It is always inappropriate to carry on a discussion in an archive page like this; but I usually turn a blind eye if it looks harmless – not from principle, but from laziness. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood's sysop flag[edit]

Hello, recently Collingwood's account was globally locked as a sockpuppet of ‎Poetlister by stewards (see this checkuser request). Since Poetlister is banned from all WMF projects, and Collingwood is now locked, his sysop flags should be removed. Techman224 (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And of course, local bureaucrats can't remove the sysop flag. I'll ask a steward at Meta. (also: holy shit, that is really disappointing) EVula // talk // // 21:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done at m:Steward requests/Permissions#Collingwood@enwikiquote. I also removed his admin userbox. EVula // talk // // 21:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I CAN'T log in, because I am blocked, maybe[edit]

This may be entirely the wrong place for this, but I am really at a loss about who to contact about this. The fact that I can't log in reduces my access to some options.

In any case, I have used the Wiki's for a long time, like most people. As time went on, and I started noticing more and more minor yet annoying, small errors in some articles, I decided to join to make corrections, and possibly sometime to create an article in a subject of my specialty. My attempts were thwarted right after joining Wikipedia. Attempts to make a global identity were blocked by information about sock puppets, some person named "Kalki", and "multiple counts of abuse".

The username I have almost always used was "Abraxas". Never before the recent couple months have I ever joined any Wiki sites. Never once have I yet edited anything in any Wiki's. And because I use and respect these sites, never have I ever "abused" anything related to this site.

So, are there 2 Abraxases? Am I punished for the sins of the other?

I have no idea who to contact, so if this is the wrong place, I am hoping that one of you may be able to direct me further into the opaque sanctum so that I can resolve this without myself having to open multiple accounts which is already getting confusing with just the few I have joined, being told in each that my previous name was already used, but not allowing log-in with that name anyway.

Can this username be rehabilitated? As with colonic bacteria, the best way to get rid of a bad guy is not just to eliminate him, but to fill his place with a good guy so he can't come back.

Thank you. Contact: almondan(at)gmail.com —The preceding manually signed comment was added by 67.142.172.27 (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2013‎

Hello. I'm not an admin, just for the record, but you are right that the account "Abraxas" was blocked (indefinitely), in May 2011, after accusations of sockpuppetry (so account creation was disabled). As for your request, you may want to check the guide to making unblock requests.
Good luck. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The the currently blocked Abraxas (talk · contributions) account here at Wikiquote IS mine, and I had SUL claim on it, but from what I can determine with the SUL account tools available there are still MANY other UNATTACHED Abraxas accounts on other wikimedia wikis, which are NOT mine, but all of them with less use than that I made of the account before it was blocked by Cirt some years ago, in what I continue to assert was the rampage of IMPROPER account blocking and page defacement based upon many FALSE ASSUMPTIONS and accusations of misuse or abuse of my accounts. I have not yet bothered to respond to all that has occurred with the thoroughness such circumstances merit, but I expect to make some revelations in coming months which I hope will clarify MANY of the issues, from some of my perspectives, and perhaps put an end to much of the confusion that I know still exists related to past occurences and present situations. ~ Kalki·· 10:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) + tweaks
  • You should be able to create an account and log in if you choose another name. When the "SUL" query indicates that a name has already been used, it is generally best to just pick a different one.

    The formal "sanctum" for your request is at Wikiquote:Changing username/Usurpation, but the SUL query indicates that none of the other "Abraxas" accounts, some of which may have been yours, have been used extensively or recently, so it is probably best to just start fresh with a new name. You can rename your old "Abraxas" accounts to a new name that nobody has already taken, at the appropriate sanctum of each local wiki. I appreciate that the situation is annoying, but "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

    It is unfortunate that the above mentioned Kalki person reserved so many names to him/herself before being stopped, but we are now stuck with the adverse consequences of this arrogant misappropriation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many ways to view the fortunes and misfortunes of past and present events. I will concede my appropriation of names was extensive, and quite naturally and properly would and should produce suspicions of extensively improper or even malicious behavior to those who lack clear understandings of what I was actually doing and many of the reasons why, but I will politely insist that I beleive it was NOT an act of deplorable arrogance, though I can concede also that it can easily seem that to others, within this range of time and circumstances, within which we are presently operating. Time will eventually tell where those who have made the most unfortunate errors lie, and who was most adamantly motivated to promote awareness, appreciation and profound respect for proper and sometimes vitally important freedoms, justice, liberty, life and love of ALL. I continue to wish others well, and will probably begin attending to some significant aspects of the VERY complex issues raised here more noticably and extensively within a few weeks. ~ Kalki·· 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • From the OP

Thanks to all who responded. This is a lot more complex than I had thought. It still doesn't explain why I can't use the same name for different Wikis, but it may somehow be involved. To note: the account names I tried to use that said they were used, but would not let me log in due to incorrect passwords, nor open an account in that name (though one already existed in Pedia), was not "Abraxas", so should not have been subject to any unusual restrictions that I know of. It looks like a "bug" to me.

Only one "Abraxas" was used by me (that I know of - I can't claim perfect, years-long recall) in Wikipedia. That name was used by me on over 5000 other internet accounts that exist in my LastPass list, and probably more, but not on any other Wikis here.

Thanks and have a good day. 67.142.172.23 21:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote: Limits on quotations[edit]

Anyone care to comment on the discussion at the Village pump? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Block request for 74.131.177.233[edit]

Please block this IP address and nuke its vandalism. Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Whaledad[edit]

Hereby I want to file a complain against User:Whaledad for making the unfounded accusation against me by stating "Mdd's articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text to do so (he actually quoted other encyclopedias in his wikiquote articles." [1]

After asking for clarification on his talk page, Whaledad was unable to deliver proof or even an example (present in the Internet Wayback), and he is unwilling to take back the accusation.

I think these kind of accusations go beyond the realm of criticism, and should be considered a personal attack. I request appropriate action to be taken. -- Mdd (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia:No personal attacks is quite clear here: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. counts as PA. -- Mdd (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's unclear what - short of a law suit - Mdd would consider proof/evidence for my statement. This situation was extensively discussed at the nl.wikiquote Village Pump ("de Kantine"). After that discussion about 84 articles written by Mdd were submitted to Vote for Deletion based on copyright violations (VfD page from that time frame use <Ctrl-F copyvio> to find the relevant nominations), and were deleted as such by a local Admin. With that I rest my case. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I feel I need to "reopen the case" and add a link to a somewhat similar case on Commons, where an Admin (Jameslwoodward) among other things had the following to say: "In this particular case -- as with all the other Mdd images that I have looked at that Whaledad has nominated -- unless we receive credible permission through OTRS, the DR should close with the deletion of the image. I note that until Whaledad came along and fixed it, Mdd was claiming copyright in File:Geert van de Camp.jpg, which is a simple crop of an image provided by another user. As similar correction was required at <follow links to 6 image>. I have tagged the following uploads of Mdd with {{delete}}: <follow list of 8 images, 6 of them now red links>. Some of them appear to be FOP problems, while others are claims of "Own Work" that do not appear to be correct. There are many other images which are web size with no EXIF which I suspect, but cannot prove, are problems.
So, we have here a user, Mdd, who has, through inexperience and lack knowledge, or perhaps, deliberately:
  • Uploaded a wide variety of images that have been deleted as copyvio
  • Has marked other people's work as "Own Work" a number of times
  • Has failed to properly attribute the photographer on images where he has made a simple crop
  • Has not paid attention to the underlying copyright of various artists in places where FOP does not apply
  • Has come here complaining of Wikihounding, when the work done by Whaledad appears to have been entirely correct, although his description of Mdd's errors may have been a little too harsh
Under the circumstances, I would advise Mdd to withdraw this complaint before a similar complaint is made against him. Bringing people who are simply doing their job to ANb is a nuisance for all of us."
After some more back and forth (in which Mdd even had the audacity to ask a Dutch Admin to take over his part of the discussion), Mdd conceded and withdrew his (false) accusation of Wikihounding. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to briefly comment here. I have certainly witnessed or endured some attitudes and remarks I regard as severely mistaken or even slanderous in regard to many things in my life, and have on some occasions passionately defended others or myself in such ways as I have believed to be proper, and I am not unfamiliar with the bitter sorrows and anger that can be manifest in both intellectual and emotional conflicts which can occur in openly and overt or very subtle and covert ways.
Though I certainly sympathize and agree with him in many regards, I actually disagree with Mdd that there is any need for admin action here, and though I might be prone to side with him in respect to so much as I can discern regarding his previous disputes and reactions to them, I do not recommend demanding any apologies of others, who have generraly done what they actually believed to be right, even if it might be wrong from the perspectives of others, and certainly do not advise seeking for any needless punishments or censures of anyone, nor to expect any beyond those that might ultimately come to some, as true necessities of remorse, with recognition of their own errors. I truly hope the matters in dispute can be more amiably discerned in the future, and a greater respect for all and among all can flourish. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 01:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the quotation from WP:NPA, in idiomatic English the phrase "personal behavior" refers to the manner of conducting oneself, such as rudeness, disruption, dishonesty, etc. The allegation about copyright, whether it is true or not, is an objective statement about a person's actions, not a criticism of personal behavior. Therefore, I do not believe this request for administrative intervention against personal attacks is well grounded.

In order to suggest how this could have been handled better, I will comment to Mdd about a couple statements in the discussion at Whaledad's talk page that led up to filing this complaint:

  • "I think I am within my rights to demand you to prove here and now the accusation you made here today."[2]
    — More properly, in making your case to the community at Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Mdd, you are within your rights to say you believe the accusation is unfounded and not supported by evidence. Your demand is counterproductive: you don't want Whaledad to successfully prove it, you want the community to decide he has not proved it.
  • "you can't deliver that proof because there isn't any. Therefor I ask you take it back, to rectifier and apologize."[3]
    — You can simply make your case to the community that there isn't any proof, and let the community decide. Whether Whaledad changes his mind, and what he does about it, is up to him.
I think it was a mistake to confront Whaledad about this on his talk page. Instead of telling him on his talk page to prove it or take it back, it would be better to simply tell us in the community discussion that you think we should ignore it because it is unproven. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so be it. I thank you both for sharing your insides, which does open some new perspectives I do appreciate. I admit in the heat of moment I might not used the proper tone both on the talk page, and in formulating this request. -- Mdd (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I followed Ningauble's advice and added a footnote in the RfA discussion, here -- Mdd (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Official policy[edit]

Just wondering if someone could update Template:Official policy. It contains two </br> tags that should be updated to <br /> tags since </br> is not a valid html tag. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, if someone could move Template:WQ BW21 to User:Blackwatch21/WQ BW21 without leaving a redirect, that would be good as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote: Limits on quotations[edit]

Once again, I have asked for further discussion on this topic at the VP. Can anyone else please join the discussion? I would so love to move this further along, as it appears that we are increasingly facing edit wars and related skirmishes all related to this topic. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BarkingFish and sockpuppets[edit]

  1. Tmalmjursson (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser)
  2. Cat in the Hat (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser)
  3. Humblesnore (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser)

Per w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarkingFish/Archive, these have all been Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed as longtime socks of BarkingFish (talk · contributions).

What do other admins think should be done about this, with regards to the main account? -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but in my opinion this user's main account should not be blocked here because he never made any disruptive edits at Wikiquote. For me it's as simple as that. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the input, -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
This person is evidently troubled, but I don't see what it has to do with Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the comment, -- Cirt (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be an agreement, that this sockpuppetry doesn't effect Wikiquote, yet after Cirt's latest comment a Category:Wikiquote sockpuppets of BarkingFish was created. This kind of overhead seems against this agreement, so I started a VFD for this category.
This also makes me wonder, why those three sub-(puppet)-accounts are blocked? None of them have made any edit here, and there is no global block. Blocking these accounts and adding a note made them active here, which seems useless. Couldn't we avoid this next time? -- Mdd (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, they're certainly all technically Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed as sockpuppets, however in this case I'll respectfully defer to the judgment expressed by the community, (which is, by the way, the reason I brought this notice, here, for discussion.) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there something I am missing here? If I am not mistaken:
  • The English Wikipedia policy on Sockpuppetry is, that sockpuppetry is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. The use of sockpuppets is no reason for any blockade, just the misuse, and
  • Wikipedia and Wikiquote operated independently. Users cannot be blocked on Wikiquote for things they have done on Wikipedia, and vice versa, unless there misuse on multiple projects and reason for global blockade.
Yet, Cirt has blocked three accounts, which were not even active here. There was no sockpuppetry use, let alone misuse here on Wikiquote. Just BarkingFish made only one (very) constructive edit here.
So is there an (exceptional) rule that (sockpuppet)accounts once "technically confirmed as sockpuppets on Wikipedia" automatically get blocked on other projects? -- Mdd (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Generally, yes, there are exceptions, for example, when they are part of non-acknowledged sockfarms being built up surreptitiously over time. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
"Citation needed" ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
" I've proxied into wikipedia through holes you'll never find, I've committed very tiny pieces of vandalism over a period of quite a long time, most of it before the Abuse filter was active on here, so a lot of it was missed, and had more than 20 throwaway accounts from multiple ISPs. I think i've covered everything. Smell ya later." - BarkingFish. -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Please cite the policy that allows you to block accounts on projects independent of Wikipedia, where said accounts have not engaged in vandalism or any sort of malicious behavior (in this case, the accounts you blocked had zero edits here). You, Cirt, are in an awkward position if you can't cite such a policy. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no official policy that Wikiquote should block accounts here that are blocked elsewhere (nor that Wikiquote should de-sysop accounts here that are de-sysoped elsewhere). However, "It is recommended that users not edit under multiple usernames, unless they have a very good reason", and it is not uncommon to block duplicate accounts as a preventative measure when the very good reason is not evident or, especially, when evidence on another wiki is suggestive of a bad reason. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
He that would live in peace and at ease, Must not speak all he knows, nor judge all he sees.
~ Benjamin Franklin ~


I do not wish to personally confront what might be some of the oversights or under-sightedness of Cirt on many matters, and am willing to be forgiving of the errors of anyone, and to pardon them from even what might pass for just punishments if malice and will to do harm are rejected and abandoned.

I know that others who seek to level and constrain the language and ideas of others in ways I find appalling do not always approve of my honest commentaries or bold assessments regarding many things, but I will make a few here, which I believe can be generally helpful and beneficial.

Extremely nihilistic or opinionated vandals of very low intellectual or moral integrity and those who seek to establish or maintain what might be described as authoritarian control or habits, customs or rules developed or devised with strong infusions of such dark cynicism and cleverness as all too often passes for wisdom among the intellectually weak and naïve and the immorally or morally oppressed, have this much in common: they seek to promote fears, suspicions, discord and drive others into forms of panic and cowardice and the embracing of a frightened and easily manipulated will to suppress and oppress all those who differ with them, dissent from them, or are effective at presenting ideas and opinions they dislike or have no affinity for, and consider rivals, opponents or enemies. Throughout history, at all levels of clearly or obscurely social, unsocial and antisocial engagement amidst all formal and informal alliances or groups of people, there have been MANY complex forms of influences at work, which MANY like to find ways to simplify in very deficient and flawed ways into an "US vs THEM" mentality and framework.

Throughout the ages the wisest and most healthy of minds of all political, religious and social traditions have always resisted and opposed such tendencies to the extent they believed they effectively could, knowing always that there are limitations upon themselves, their times and resources, and those of others far less discerning and far more prone to being dupes to those who regularly engage in such tropes with maliciously or callously deceitful intentions.

I have little doubt, from what little I have payed attention to this particular matter, that Barking Fish is a pathetically disturbed individual — and I have little doubt that increasing the fame and fear of such pathetically disturbed individuals serves many of their interests and desires as much as it does those who are most habitually prone to promoting such fame and fears for what they might perhaps believe to be the "good" of everyone. There are pathetically disturbed people in the world, ALWAYS, and to the extent they cannot be easily helped, or refuse help, and even seek to vilify and denigrate others most capable of providing help, and yet do not actively engage in unjust forms of destruction or oppression of others, they should generally be left to gradually develop or stagnate and pass away, as their own inclinations impel them, or only occasionally and gently offered such help as they might accept. Some might consider me harsh and cold in making such assessments, but I believe that this is preferable to being either soft-minded or hotly passionate about doing such injurious or dangerous things as need not actually be done against anyone, to the service of greater forms or aspects of the good of Humanity, its proper rights everywhere and anywhere and the Liberty to assert and indicate these.

When I was an admin here, I was very swiftly reactive to clear vandalism, and squelched it rather rapidly, and was widely recognized as being extraordinarily effective at that, and battling it across MANY wikis, which led to me being "active" on many — but though there were many incidents of suspicious or distressing behavior that were not clear vandalism, I did not go about seeking people or puppet accounts of people to vent my wrath or frustrations upon others in childish and even infantile ways, which might EASILY be misdirected and applied in ERROR. I simply remained alert and confident that IF and WHEN many very clear abuses occurred they could rapidly be dealt with by myself and others.

A problem far more endemic and pervasive and dangerous to the health of many projects which I saw developing was the rather obscured or even approved abuse of many forms of privilege to suppress dissent or divergence from such will as some wished to declare "OFFICIAL" and implicitly sacred or sound, and I made some rather pointed statements to that effect, just prior to having the resources and wills of a few others directed in many ways against what long-standing good reputation as a conscientious and admirable worker as I believe I had earned by my actions, up to that point. Others later sought to use such apparent disgrace or disfavor as had developed here, to snowball that into a "generally negative" impression of me and my intentions wherever they could among the WIkimedia projects, in rather appalling ways, which I will decline to elaborate upon, at this point, as I have no intentions of belaboring many past errors and mistaken assumptions beyond such points as I believe necessary for the development of more aware and appreciative and healthy attitudes towards those who DO and MUST differ with oneself, for various reasons.

I wish to again assert that I have no personal animosity to those who fall into errors of various kinds, but I generally DO seek ways to help others out of errors — and know that others can be helpful to me, in rising out of whatever forms of error or ignorance I might seem to be in, and am usually quite grateful for what help others can and do provide me, even if sometimes unwittingly.

Those are just a few of my thoughts on this matter, and I congratulate others for recently showing and demonstrating capacities for far more reserved and circumspect reactions to circumstances than many are inclined to encourage or even acknowledge as either necessary or proper. It is evidence of a growing conscientiousness that there ALWAYS are aspects of things which are beyond one's direct observation, and though many actual or potential aspects of these CANNOT or should not ever rule one's own reactions, prior to being KNOWN, to maintain a healthy skepticism to ANY claims is ALWAYS an important procedure in maintaining healthy forms of Awareness, Life, and Love, and developing truly fair and genuinely cohesive societies, alliances and presentational projects such as this WIki. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 19:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

I agree with this above comment by admin Ningauble. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Two things keep bothering me. First so far I have seen no indication, that this Wikipedia sockpuppetry has affected Wikiquote in the past or could possibly affect Wikiquote in the future. There seem to be no reason for preventative measure. And second, we don't automatically block all confirmed Wikipedia sockpuppets. Why would we make exceptions? It seems to me the only reason to make exceptions is, if there are indications that it might negatively affect Wikiquote.
Just as here proposed, I like to propose to stop importing Wikipedia sockpuppet investigations and results here, when there is no indication that it might negatively affect Wikiquote. -- Mdd (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Best to keep it on a case-by-case basis, seeking out input from other admins and the community. In cases of obvious vandals and cross-wiki-spammers, blocks on sight for accounts on all wikis are routine. -- Cirt (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Martha Washington[edit]

There was once a Martha Washington page on the wiki, deleted because of lack of source quotes, which I would like restored so that I can work on it as a base, sourcing whatever I can of what there was upon it — and adding whatever I can beyond that, in the next week or so. ~ Kalki·· 03:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, now at User:Kalki/Martha Washington. -- Cirt (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. ~ Kalki·· 03:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Kalki (talk · contributions), have a great day! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

“You will never be able to escape from your heart. So it's better to listen to what it has to say.”[edit]

Can someone delete “You will never be able to escape from your heart. So it's better to listen to what it has to say.”, it's nonsense/vandalism?King jakob c 2 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done. Next time please just tag the articles with {{Delete}} or {{Db}} ("delete because"). Then they get automatically listed in this Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and will be deleted afterwards. -- Mdd (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Spambot or other vandalism on Woodrow Wilson talk page[edit]

Since the 13th of April the talk page of Woodrow Wilson has been repeatedly vandalized by what might be some persistent vandal or defective spambot of some kind, and should probably be given at least some short-term protection from anonymous edits. ~ Kalki·· 05:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Cheers! BD2412 T 02:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

George Washington[edit]

George Washington is attracting a lot of vandalism from IPs. Can someone semi-protect it? Thanks, King jakob c 2 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes check.svgY Done Cheers! BD2412 T 23:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by DanielTom[edit]

DanielTom: "I think you are in serious need of psychiatric help. Please seek it. ~ DanielTom".

In response to my request for the user to cease posting to my talkpage, he gave a personal attack.

I would appreciate it if an admin can please warn DanielTom (talk · contributions) that this is inappropriate behavior.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

While I do not wish to wade into the specifics of what the two of you are arguing about, my initial reaction to his request is that you would be wise to grow a thicker skin. Sure, you may be offended by the language DanielTom used, but I hardly find it to be behavior requiring intervention in the form of any punitive action against him. I've been subject to plenty of denigrative attacks throughout my years here - it's not entirely unexpected when there are disagreements. I also note that this is at least the second time that you have been involved in an exercise of escalating rhetoric with another user, causing what should have been a fairly minor issue at the beginning to metamorphose into something much larger. Again, yes it would be nice if we all addressed each other in the most civil manner, but that's not always realistic in an online community such as this. As a more visible member of said community in the role of an admin, I would expect you to let a bit more slide and not be so reactive to attacks. My advice: let it go (see similar advice from BD2412: [4], where he advised you "to stay calm and remain above the fray."). ~ UDScott (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's say I know someone who I think is (for example) considering suicide. What Cirt is saying is that, basically, if I tell that person to contact a mental health professional immediately, that would be a "personal attack". But it isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
My point is that whether or not he feels it is a personal attack is something subjective that neither I nor anyone else can decide. But surely it does not rise to the level where some action against you as the author of the comment is needed. I am saying that I believe that both sides of this dispute are overreacting a bit and I would advise both to dial it down a bit. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, UDScott. In any case, Cirt already got what he wanted: he put this giant and bogus title "Personal attack by DanielTom" not just here, but in every admin's Talk page. As if admins needed to be reminded to read the Administrators' noticeboard. Jesus Christ. I genuinely think Cirt needs mental help, all the more now. If that is a "personal attack", block me and get it over with. This is absolutely ridiculous. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ...seriously? This is what you consider a personal attack? EVula // talk // // 18:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Reply by Cirt: Understood, EVula (talk · contributions) and UDScott (talk · contributions). Thank you for your comments. No further action required. I'll take the suggested input by these two admins under advisement. I appreciate it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Cirt, you truly are an embarrassment. You harass people. You are the the most petty, childish and vindictive person I have ever come across on Wikiquote. I have less than zero respect for you. I hope that's clear enough. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. A sensible admin should now block me. I propose a one-week block. Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Mary Tyler Moore[edit]

There was once a Mary Tyler Moore page on the wiki, which was deleted among the various overwhelming number of deletions of prods that have been created for the relatively few active editors here. I would like that restored so that I can work on it as a base within the next week or so, sourcing what quotes I can, and adding some, perhaps. ~ Kalki·· 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done good luck. Mdd (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

subtle vandal[edit]

I recently have reverted two edits where an ostensibly plausible citation was given for an implausible statement by an anon IP. Just now it was the Einstein page where it seems a citation of another actual quote was copied to make the addition seem plausible. In the previous case (though I do not immediately recall on which page I encountered it) the citation itself was a bit more implausible, but rather subtly so to anyone just giving it a casual glance, and in both cases I actually did an internet search to confirm my suspicions, before reverting the additions. I am just noting this as a heads-up on the situation, because this might indicate the currently active presence of a subtly malicious vandal at work, and as I do not monitor things anywhere near as much as I once did, there might be other incidents I failed to catch. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 04:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DivesGreatestMan and sockpuppets[edit]

  1. SonPhanGreat (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser)
  2. WickyLicky (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser)
  3. Sonphan1 (talk contribs deleted contribs logs block user block log checkuser)

I like to ask attention for this user:

  • DivesGreatestMan‎ created a userpage today here on Wikiquote, claiming he is born September 13, 2003
  • On April 27 April 2013‎ he created the User:SonPhanGreat page on Wikicommons with the same info, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:SonPhanGreat
  • On 14:49, 27 April 2013 the User:SonPhanGreat is being blocked on Wikipedia after being idetified as sockpop of user:WickyLicky
  • The userpage User:SonPhanGreat made 23:41, 24 April 2013 with the same info as User:DivesGreatestMan‎ here, is made invisible on Wikipedia
  • The sock puppeteer User:WickyLicky made his first edit 21:21, 1 November 2012

Now what drew my attention in the first place was the day of birth. It seems like a very bad idea that we allow children on Wikiquote to mention there full name, and day of birth. This is why I deleted the user page this afternoon. In the meantime a new userpage with the same info is created, and an userpage with a cryptic remark.

This made me start further investigation with the above mentioned. Now it seems he has shifted his attention from Wikipedia to Wikiquote after being his block on Wikipedia. Now I would like to request feedback on how to further respond here? -- Mdd (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime I blocked him (for one month) after he started vandalizing multiple (new) pages, and afterwards also blocked his talk-page for making threads. -- Mdd (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Because of this pattern of cross Wiki vandalism, I would propose to block this user, and his known sockpuppets indefinitely, and have the text of his use page removed. -- Mdd (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but is there any reason to believe that this date of birth is correct? He could be trolling.--Abramsky (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I simply don't know. I do know he added (almost) the same info on Wikipedia, on Wikicommons and here on Wikiquote. And this info is suppressed on the English Wikipedia, but I also do not know why (yet). I do think we should not allow this kind of info on userpages, true or false. -- Mdd (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the user and talk pages due to impersonating an administrator. I would have used an indefinite block for this vandalism only account, rather than one month, because harassment & impersonation is a special aggravating circumstance that merits swift and final expulsion. Regarding self-identified children generally, it would be appropriate to remove any personally identifying information. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done Thanks Ningauble, I have changed the block to indefinite. -- Mdd (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Contributions 99.90.197.87[edit]

I could be mistaken, but I don't see the anom user 99.90.197.87 making any constructive edits. Edits like today [5], [6] could be deleted as test-edits, but this anom user is going on for quite some time, making similar edits. Should there be some more structural action here? Mdd (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have sent the user a warning. As Runningonbrains remarked in the Wikipedia block log, whether this is a WP:TROLL or a WP:COMPETENCE problem, either way it's disruptive. I would not hesitate to block if the behavior continues. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Chip Berlet Quotes Page[edit]

Over four years ago I complained that the page about me is primarily composed of negative critical material and very unbalanced. It was originally set up as part of a series of political attacks on me and my work that spread across several Wikimedia projects and discussions. I am not allowed to edit my own page, and no one has stepped forward to remedy the problem. All of the quotes About me contain nasty personal attacks. Most of the cites and links are to more nasty personal attacks. All I am asking is that someone here in this discussion forum take on the responsibility for fixing what is clearly a biased page. --Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant discussion: Wikiquote:Village pump archive 21#Using Wikiquote for a vendetta. While we cannot delete quotes just because they contain harsh criticisms, it is indeed desirable that our articles be balanced. To this end, I have just added three (more positive) quotes to the article, including two written by yourself. See [7]. Regards, DanielTom (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

About the quotes of Kedar Joshi[edit]

Kedar Joshi is not a notable person. User RogDel seems Kedar Joshi himself or other but he is constantly adding material to wikiquote. I request action about his behavior of this. Kedaaar Jo Sheee (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion concerning Kedar Joshi's notability (or lack thereof) is still ongoing (at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kedar Joshi quote farming), as already explained elsewhere, so, needless to say, RogDel's "behavior" was perfectly fine and legitimate. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I note that this editor seems to have very strong feelings about Kedar Joshi; I have just reverted a page blank he/she made on Wikibooks.--Abramsky (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I note that user "Kedaaar Jo Sheee" has posted duplicate copies of this missive on multiple project and discussion pages, in a manner that might be considered disruptive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for closure[edit]

These two discussions have had ample time and participation to reach consensus, if any. I would be grateful if someone a little less heavily involved than myself would assess the results and close them. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A month has passed with no further comments on these discussions.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done Cheers! BD2412 T 03:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
1. If these quotes can be included (and I see no reason why they should not be included), I see no reason why quotes by Kedar Joshi should be excluded.
2. “Among more experienced editors, the vast majority support removal” – BD2412
Since WQ is not a democracy, this seems to be an invalid argument for removal. There does not seem to have been any stronger argument countering all the simple and logical arguments I have made in support of inclusion of such quotations. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
RogDel, with all due respect, I seriously doubt that we should create such explicit regulations about such exceptional situations. As to Kedar Joshi, after years of discussion we should draw a line, and not keep bringing it up. As to the regulation even for me it is confusion, trying to make a difference between quotability and notability, let alone outsiders. There are so much ins and out about, and regularly there seem to be a good understanding. Don't try to make regulations for those handful of cases we don't all agree on. -- Mdd (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
<edit conflict> Regarding RogDel's first point, other stuff is not always good precedent, particularly when the addition of that stuff gives the appearance of making a point about a minority view from these discussions. Now that these discussions have been closed, there may be further action to deal with this stuff that was added while the discussions were ongoing.

Regarding the second point, discussions are assessed based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, & etc. As expressly indicated in the closing remarks, from which you selectively quote, anonymous single-purpose accounts that are not cognizant of or do not address those factors have little or no weight in assessing the arguments.

Regarding the essay linked above, it directly contradicts the established guideline at Wikiquote:Quotability, which makes it relatively unpersuasive as an argument in these cases. If you think the guideline is wrong then it might be better to propose changing it rather than try an end-run around it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • RogDel, I think maybe only one or two people have read your (rather long and repetitive) essay. Perhaps, for their benefit, one could condense it into one sentence: "If a quote is cited in a 'highly reliable' secondary source (even if just once) then it is notable enough to be on Wikiquote." Would you accept that as a fair summary? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

new pattern-vandal[edit]

A new pattern-vandal has been vandalizing the Jimbo Wales page and user pages. The latest account activity has been as Technoquatic Quoticals (talk · contributions), and this account and other associated accounts seem appropriate for blockage as clearly vandal accounts. ~ Kalki·· 22:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

He keeps making new accounts to vandalize the same pages. Froonkfurterich‎ (talk · contributions) seems to be his latest incarnation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I put a short-term block on this user, but if current behavior continues, I'm sure a long-term one will be necessary. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
See also w:WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technoquat/Archive Vanischenu (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Feuding between DanielTom and Cirt[edit]

Per the discussion ongoing at User talk:UDScott#Query for help (and on my talk page), I am setting forth the following interaction ban in response to the incessant and disruptive feuding, baiting, and forum shopping between DanielTom and Cirt.

DanielTom could properly be blocked for incivility at this point (he has said as much). If DanielTom attempts to bait or otherwise interact with Cirt, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or otherwise contests any of his actions, I will block DanielTom for a minimum of thirty days.

If Cirt attempts to interact with DanielTom, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or otherwise contests any of his actions, I will move to desysop Cirt on this project. Reacting to baiting is not the trait of an administrator.

To the extent that either Cirt or DanielTom thinks the other is making improper edits or otherwise misbehaving, do nothing about and say nothing about it. The other administrators on this project are observant, and we will see and will handle any violations of policy.

I hope that my fellow administrators agree with my determination with respect to this matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


Reply by Cirt to BD2412
Originally posted on another page: diff.

This is my reply to comment by BD2412.

Comment: @BD2412 (talk · contributions), understood. I will take your advice to heart. I will do my best to not react to the baiting. I will do my best to only engage in a polite and constructive manner from here on out. I am sorry for troubling you with this. I will do my best to rise above this matter. Thank you for your advice and your input. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Ningauble about the ban

I endorse the interaction ban imposed by BD2412. The misconduct of both parties has been extensive and disruptive. Note that the ban as stated is indefinite in duration. I would not want to entertain an application to lift an indefinite ban in less than six months or a year.

Regarding stipulated consequences for violating the ban by DanielTom:  I approve of handling this in a progressive manner, as has been done, rather than imposing a 30 day block on the first infraction. I think any further infractions should be met with steep progression.

Regarding stipulated consequences for violating the ban by Cirt:  This is not really an administrative sanction. A vote of confidence may be called any time that three users concur. Administrative sanctions may still be imposed for misconduct even if it is not stipulated in this ban. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Cirt has already breached the interaction ban[edit]

BD2412 made the terms of the interaction ban clear:

If Cirt attempts to interact with DanielTom, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or otherwise contests any of his actions, I will move to desysop Cirt on this project.

Yet, Cirt has already completely disrespected the interaction ban: just one hour later, he decided to come to my talk page, uninvited, and posted this baiting comment. I am tempted to reply to his baiting comment, but I won't, as I don't think I would particularly enjoy being unable to edit WQ for 30 days. However, after Cirt's direct breach of the interaction ban cited above, I would like to see BD keeping his word and actually "[moving] to desysop Cirt on this project". ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC) last edit: 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I have blocked you for 24 hours to be sure that you understand that I am serious about this interaction ban. As I said above, if either of you thinks the other is making improper edits or otherwise misbehaving, do nothing about and say nothing about it. That includes accusing one another of violations of this interaction ban. Please do not imagine for a moment that other administrators on this site are unaware of any action that either of you is taking.
Secondly, I hope that you agree that fair warning of a penalty to be imposed is necessary before imposition of that penalty. I saw the post Cirt made on your talk page last night, shortly after I set forth this interaction ban. Based on Cirt's edits, there is no reason to believe that he was aware of this interaction ban at the time that he made the talk page post of which you complain. You, on the other hand, were clearly aware of it before you posted this complaint.
In case I need to make this any clearer, both of you are to carry on as if the other does not exist.
Finally, I hope that the community approves of my determination with respect to this problem, but if any uninvolved administrator feels that I have overstepped the bounds of my authority in my actions with respect to this matter, please feel free to unblock DanielTom. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, fully endorse both the ban and your action here. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
@BD2412: thanks for blocking me, I appreciate it. Alas, I have a hard time learning from punitive blocks, so I shall make another comment here, and be blocked for it again. I must point out that your contrived naïveté ("there is no reason to believe that [Cirt] was aware of this interaction ban at the time that he made the talk page post of which you complain") is quite breathtaking. Cirt edited several different pages after you set forth this interaction ban, including yours, UDSCott's, and Ningauble's talk pages (not just mine), so he must have seen the Recent Changes page, or at least his Watchlist. To say that he somehow missed the section you had opened an hour earlier in the Administrator's Noticeboard, with his name in it, is simply absurd. In any case, as you can see, I have mentioned Cirt in this very comment, so you should block me once again, this time for "at least 30 days." Won't that be fun for you? I will miss editing articles, but I understand that I need to be blocked, as I pose such a great danger to Wikiquote. Knock yourself out. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you have now specifically requested to be blocked for 30 days, I will accommodate your request. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I suppose if I asked you to [insert any fantasy] me, you would also "accommodate" my request? I did not request to be blocked. Sorry that you don't understand irony. (It's not a new concept, it's been around for at least a couple of years now.) In any case, you decided to abuse your tools and block me for 30 days, as a smokescreen, so that you wouldn't have to properly reply to the clarification/explanation in my comment, above, but even a child can see through that. (Nice try, though.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for reconsideration[edit]

DanielTom has sent me an email stating that he has learned his lesson, and will abide by the interaction ban, and therefore seeks reconsideration of the period of the block. He seems to have gotten the message, and I am inclined to unblock, if there is general support from my fellow administrators for so doing. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection.--Abramsky (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
If we can have another productive editor and not have anymore back-and-forth between them, I'd say that's the best possible scenario. Thumbs up. EVula // talk // // 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No objections from me, assuming the dispute is not continued. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, the three of you. And thanks to Ningauble and BD as well, even though I am disappointed by their recent actions. (Anyway, time to move on.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Although I received a snarky email when I extended the scope of the block,[8] I do not object to giving the benefit of the doubt if others are persuaded that he is now earnest about reform. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
My email to you was not "snarky", and as no person reading this here has access to it, other than the two of us, it is very ungentlemanly of you to say it was. However, I should say, the message you left at my talk page after revoking my talk page access for 30 days was "snarky", as I've just briefly explained there. Finally, I cannot believe that it was in Wikiquote's best interest to have me blocked an unable to edit articles (but, then again, maybe that's me being too egocentric.) Sincerely, DanielTom (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. Ningauble, if you think you can revoke my talk page access for 30 days and then not hear any criticism from me, think again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
As the community is in agreement, the block of User:DanielTom is lifted. The interaction ban remains is place indefinitely. BD2412 T 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
DanielTom had (before asking to be unblocked) sent both BD and Ningauble more than a couple emails with diffs and links to articles that could have been easily fixed in less than 10 seconds, but he was simply ignored. Given this, I (speaking in the first person now) did request to be unblocked early so that I could edit said articles again myself [as well as others, and I quote from the email: I just want to go back to edit[ing] articles. (Plans include adding a few quotes to the Bertrand Russell article, Virgil, and then fixing the Death Note page as promised [9])]. I should say that the original block itself was ridiculous (in my opinion, at any rate; admittedly, it is always amusing for me to be treated like a vandal — though, oddly enough, even deliberate vandals, whose only contributions have been wrecking articles, are usually only blocked for 2 days, while I found myself blocked for 30 days, but I digress), and as I had already been blocked for about two weeks, that was indeed long enough time for me to admit "lesson learnt" [where the lesson is: 1) some people apparently do not really care about article quality, and 2) punitive blocks are considered acceptable here]). I will indeed "abide by the interaction ban" from now on. Time to focus on articles again. Thanks guys for getting me unblocked, and see you 'round. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The original block was for 24 hours, this was your second block. Persistent disruption is indeed treated differently than drive-by vandalism, and blocking to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" is preventative, not punitive. I do recognize the distinction may not be easy to appreciate when one is on the receiving end of it, but it really is not the same thing.

Regarding article fixes not done: you would not believe the length of my list of things needing to be fixed. One of the coping mechanisms I employ for problems arising faster than I can address them is to defer action when it appears that someone else will probably handle it. Still, the list grows daily, even without distractions like this, and the priorities I choose are mostly inexplicable even to myself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someday someone will explain to me exactly how blocking me for 30 days for this edit was "preventive", and not punitive. Anyway, I agree with you, this really is a "distraction", and a waste of time.~ DanielTom (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New block of DanielTom[edit]

In response to this edit to my talk page, in violation of the interaction ban, I have blocked DanielTom for three months. This editor has previously made requests for actions like this in ways that do not implicate the interaction ban, so clearly he knows how to do so, and has chosen not to. I interpret this as the editor intentionally trying to make trouble, to see what he can get away with, which is not conduct consistent with a good faith desire to build a useful compendium of quotes. BD2412 T 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Block request for SantiagoG[edit]

Hi there,

SantiagoG (talk · contributions) is a spambot using a non-sul account, so unfortunately it can't be locked. Please consider blocking it instead. :)

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Spam bots like this are pretty routine, you can usually just tag the userpage and they get deleted and blocked pretty quickly. EVula // talk // // 06:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Alas, this particular pattern of userpage spam has become very routine lately. They will eventually realize they are wasting their time, but it can take a while because they are remarkably stupid. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Back when I still had the CheckUser bit, I'd run the occasional check to see if I could catch a bunch of accounts at one time, but alas, there was never any connection between them. EVula // talk // // 05:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Let us just nominate and choose a second CheckUser here, and then you get your bit backs. -- Mdd (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Here, here! BD2412 T 03:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
BD2412, if you are interested you got my vote. -- Mdd (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the support, but since my last bid for CU status I have come around to the view that it is probably better for the project for power to be diffused rather than concentrated. As I am already a 'crat, I would feel uncomfortable also serving as a CU at this point. However, I do think we need more CUs. BD2412 T 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Ningauble, in the light the diffusion of power, would you be interested in the CheckUser bit? If so you got my vote. -- Mdd (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
For my own peace of mind, I prefer not to delve into the activities of bad actors more deeply than I already do with my administrative work. I don't want to be involved in researching personally identifying information about them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd say the chances of us having a new CheckUser on Wikiquote are about 0%. Where would the candidates get the (minimum) 25 supporting votes to be "promoted", when we don't even have 10 active contributors on this wiki? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. You would be surprised by who shows up for CU elections. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No Wikiquote CheckUser has ever been legitimately elected here, as anyone looking at the archives can now confirm. It's not just that people with almost no local contributions show up; we've also had more than one sockpuppet voting in such elections. (And, no, I wouldn't be surprised because I've seen them.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it has been argued that sock voting makes the entire project illegitimate, but I don't think we need to go there. I am satisfied by the level of participation in past CU elections that the outcomes were not influenced by the quantity of puppet votes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(Where? The discussion you linked only refers to possible copyright infringements, not to "sock voting".) The outcomes were certainly influenced by puppet votes (who helped the support votes reach the minimum of 25). While I too am "satisfied", I still feel that the current minimum (a relic blindly and rigidly imposed by meta policy) is too high, and unrealistic, for Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No legitimate CheckUser election? O rly? EVula // talk // // 17:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep. Some users there had (and still do) literally zero edits on Wikiquote, other than showing up at your election to vote support (namely, and strikingly, User:Nifky?, User:Razorflame, and User:Jake Wartenberg). (Incidentally, there were also other users, namely User:Juliancolton and User:Counterpower, who also had zero or just a couple of edits to articles before voting there.) None of that was your fault; nay, it was pretty much a must, given that we simply don't have, and never had, 25 active contributors on Wikiquote. (See the larger picture?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
We have more active contributors (usually defined as at least 5 article edits per month) than that. See editor activity levels at Wikistats. Getting them to participate in community affairs is another matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
@DanielTom: (Within that lengthy discussion there were strong words alleging incompetent governance in dealing with the Poetlister socks, claiming that was sufficient grounds to disband the project.) The elections were typically called as soon as they reach 25, and results would not likely have been different had they run a little longer. This is really moot unless you want to challenge EVula's standing for reinstatement in the event a second CU is elected. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't want to challenge EVula's standing. (We need more CUs, not less. But, ain't gonna happen.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
@Ningauble, thanks. Still that particular pattern of userpage spam also worries me, and I think we should search for more structural solutions. Getting the CheckUser bit back, and (let EVula) keep running occasional checks, seems the least we could/should do. -- Mdd (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The global Stewards are well aware of this pattern, which occurs across all wikis. Unfortunately, the IP addresses used by these spambots are highly variable by design, so blocking them, even ranges of them, is ineffective. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, any time that I would run a check on the spam IPs, I'd get nothing. It's really annoying. EVula // talk // // 15:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone might investigate whether Wikipedia has developed an Abuse filter for this pattern. However, the text changes so much that keeping up with the filter might be a game of Whac-A-Mole. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit filter maybe[edit]

I don't hang out at Wikiquote, so I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. But I just ran across an edit that may have been able to be stopped by an edit filter similar to w:en:Special:AbuseFilter/135. Perhaps somebody could copy that filter over to here. 64.40.54.47 04:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk page spam[edit]

Yesterday and today I noticed a (for me) new type of spam on the talk page: an unrelated text (size about 4k) from a rotating ip address (see for example here). Now I noticed that 7 of 9 originated ip addresses originated from one ownerid in Venezuela. If this continues, can we than block his range of IP addresses all at once? -- Mdd (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thus far I count 25 IP addresses used by this spambot, ranging from 60.24.11.41 to 221.10.40.232. This is too wide a range to block without blacking out entire continents. If the problem persists then someone could try using the Abuse filter to mitigate it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)–Updated 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request User:Diogotome[edit]

The following unblock request is copy/paste here (partly trimmed) from here by Mdd (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As you know, my brother was blocked some time ago in many wikis where he has zero edits... He was recently unblocked at Commons, where admin asked him to write on his user page that he is my brother. (He did so [10]...) He was also unblocked at Wikisource [11] on the grounds that he had no edits there. (He also has no edits here.)

Other than the strong evidence presented by email that he is my brother (including citizen card, ID), there are other things which you included can check. 1) he created his account in 2009 (I myself didn't even know about accounts till late 2012); 2) the email with which he registered his account is diofact@hotmail.com (confirm that); 3) he still uses that email, even on his Facebook account, where you can find him (Diogo Tomé). I think it is obvious that the account is his.

Also worth noting, he, just like me, registered with his real name, which is not what socks do (...). Although I know he doesn't want to edit Wikiquote, I still don't think he should be blocked here on sock grounds. ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I have lifted the block. It is my understanding that User:Diogotome has no interest in editing here. I am sure you are aware that it would raise some eyebrows (on all of the above mentioned projects) if this editor suddenly began making edits that seemed as if they are made as a proxy for you, so please take care. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks (your understanding is correct). ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with this unblocking, but I would like to rectify some incorrect assumptions. (1) The email with which he registered his account cannot be confirmed by any technical means available to administrators here. It is confidential information that only the account holder is at liberty to disclose. (2) Registering with a real name most definitely is something that socks do. Some of the most notorious abusers are known to impersonate real people.

Finally, BD's eyebrow raising admonition cuts both ways: both accounts should avoid involvement in each other's affairs. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"The email with which he registered his account cannot be confirmed by any technical means available to administrators here." Where can it be confirmed? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I assume that it could be extracted by a developer. However, it is easy enough to change the e-mail associated with an account; we have no way of knowing whether it is the original address.--Abramsky (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
"It is confidential information that only the account holder is at liberty to disclose." The Privacy policy identifies one way he can confirm the email address currently linked to his account (using "email this user"), and indicates conditions under which the Foundation would disclose it without his consent (e.g. subpoena). ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose even the original email ("e-mail address confirmation") could be changed if forwarded. As to the real names question, of course socks use real names, but not their real names (any name you can choose is someone else's real name). My point is that no sock has its name so close to the sockmaster's (in this case, Diogo being a Portuguese name, and our family names being the same). Maybe if I get blocked indefinitely on Wikiquote, and unable to edit, my brother may come along to return my favor here, and ask that I be unblocked, although that is exceedingly unlikely (not the block part, but the returning of the favor part from him). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Mean Girls[edit]

Could an administrator semi-protect Mean Girls? Too much IP vandalism going on as of lately (especially 65.175.216.98 (talk · contributions)). Thanks in advance. SnapSnap (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done - but I also trimmed this very bloated page first. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

QOTD for 10 & 12 August 2013[edit]

The QOTD layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/August 10, 2013 will have to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 10, 2013 by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 21:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Mdd (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I am once again a bit late with a selection and the QOTD layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/August 12, 2013 will have to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 12, 2013 by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk: Main Page[edit]

Can someone semi-protect this again? It's getting vandalized a lot. Kjc2 jabber 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am reluctant to protect the talk page or our main public-facing portal, where newcomers and visitors should be welcome to make pertinent inquiries and comments, unless the situation becomes unmanageable. I think the current frequency of unconstructive edits on this widely watched page is being handled well enough by folks who notice and revert in a fairly timely manner. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems in the past year only one comment was made by an anom visitors, while the page is vandalized 50+ times. -- Mdd (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
You are not counting registered accounts without enough local edits to be autoconfirmed, but it is true that unconstructive edits significantly outnumber constructive ones. I just don't think a handful of reverts per month is too great a price to pay for keeping the front door open. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocking question[edit]

Just wanted to gauge the opinions of the admins: I noticed that Mdd (talk · contributions) recently blocked a user indefinitely for a single instance of what I would characterize as moderate and fairly harmless spamming (linking to a site for their poetry on their user page). If it were me, I would have likely let them off with a {{spam}} warning - which is what I did earlier in the day for someone who posted a link to their blog on their user page. I'm not saying my inclination is correct or that Mdd (talk · contributions) is wrong, but in the spirit of consistency, what is the feeling out there? I'm just curious. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about MelissaHg (talk · contributions), I'd say it was a reasonable assumption; the page itself matches the same pattern for all the spam that we've been getting for months (right down to the double <br> tags before the link). Plus, I'm not sure why someone from Switzerland would have a Spanish poetry site... EVula // talk // // 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
In the past 4 months I have blocked about 200 new users, which where I presume all made by spam bots. The links which are presented by those spam bots differ greatly from hardporn to... indeed poetry. Does UDScott suggest, that we make go make a difference in what type of site the spambot is referring to? If indeed there are just spam-bots, it seems to me adding warnings on the talk page is a waist of time. -- Mdd (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
In the end, I'm not really asking whether or not a block was warranted (in most cases I agree it is) - I'm just asking if it is the first step in all cases. I just want to be consistent in our treatment of spam. If it is the case that we automatically block anyone who posts spam, fine - but our blocking policy does not reflect this and should be updated. The only current mention of spam is that if a block is given for spamming, it should not be less than a month. And if we are going this way, then what is the purpose of the two spam warnings we have? Again, I'm not trying to criticize what anyone else has done - I'm just asking the question on how we would like to generally treat these circumstances. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that we need to update our blocking policy, then. I don't think warning spam accounts will do anything; it's just drive-by vandalism, but if we just delete the spam and leave the account, there's a much better chance that they'll swing right back around and spam again, increasing the amount of administrative work (not by a substantial margin, of course; but it is one more time that we have to delete their spam). EVula // talk // // 19:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Before we became inundated, as Mdd notes, with a consistent pattern userpage spam, I routinely responded as UDScott describes. Since then I have been blocking them on sight, when they appear to be using the same pattern, without investigating whether the link itself is commercial or otherwise execrable. I would not be quite so hasty with things that do not appear to match the pattern.

I do not regard this as drive-by spamming: the consistency of the pattern leads me to believe we are dealing with an SEO spammer who is hired by people who want to promote their web pages. If the nature of the linked content makes no difference to the spammer, I am not sure it should make any difference to us. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@UDScott: our regular visitors, the spambots, follow an easily-distinguishable pattern, and I think those can just be blocked with no prior warning (they aren't here to contribute to articles anyway). But when it comes to human editors who, say, post unwarranted links in "External links" article sections, then the {{spam}} templates can and should be used, as they offer useful information to the user, and serve as warnings. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, understood - this pretty much matches to my understanding. I guess it's my fault that I've been spending more time on other parts of the project and I don't know that I would automatically recognize someone as a spambot, which spawned my question (I fight them when I see them, but I usually see more traditional vandals than spammers in my time here). Thanks all. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
In recent months this pattern of spam has been a large proportion, even a majority, of newly created user pages. Therefore, I have been screening all new user pages daily. Since becoming an administrator, Mdd has been catching most of them while my time zone is sleeping. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)/16:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Question: if a spambot starts posting here, and we block them for just a month, do we have any reason to think that they will start spamming again once the month is up? I honestly don't know. It seems to me that spambots, once blocked for any reasonable length of time, just go away forever even if the block expires. BD2412 T 20:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the spambot will be back after a month. He has already been using the same pattern for several months running. This might quite possibly be the same SEO spammer that started two years ago, though the pattern now uses less verbose boilerplate. Prior to that time userpage spamming was rare and was not systematic; but since then we have only infrequently been without extended campaigns of systematic userpage spam.

The named throwaway accounts are seldom re-used, except in an immediate timeframe. The reason I block them is not to prevent re-using the names, but to autoblock the underlying IPs. This does not stop him, but it is my impression that blocking enough of them slows him down a bit, at least until he gets a fresh set of addresses to exploit. Perhaps resistance is futile. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we file a complaint with his ISP? BD2412 T 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Back when I had my CU flag, I would run a check on the occasional userpage vandal like these, but I could never find a pattern between them. I'm not sure that there would be a single IP to file a complaint with. EVula // talk // // 21:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
There should be a way of adding "<br><br>" to the abuse filter, at least as a test (maybe just on user pages). ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I use that syntax sometimes, and in drafts in userspace too. Some kind of alert would be nice, though. BD2412 T 02:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Is it technically possible to make the creation of an external link subject to a captcha for new users and only new users? (I think it would be too irksome to have it for everyone.) That would solve the problem.--Abramsky (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible, since Wikipedia is able to prevent new users from creating articles at all. This is an excellent suggestion. BD2412 T 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, but it would appear that the spammer(s) already passed the captchas required to create these throwaway accounts in the first place. Doubling the labor cost by adding a captcha when editing may not be much of a deterrent.

If we want to pursue this, it would involve tweaking configuration settings for the ConfirmEdit extension. I do not know where to view the current settings (or whether I am allowed to). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we just bar new accounts from adding external links, period? No external links until you've made x number of regular edits over y number of days? BD2412 T 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This would be a very significant new policy but, yes, we can. It could be enforced by the Abuse Filter if there is no more direct method. (We would need assistance from Wikipedia's filter experts to implement something that does not give false-positives when editing a page that already contains external links.)

Note that this would impact many long-term IP editors who choose not to register an account (most of whom probably do not monitor discussion pages where policy consensus is formulated). Although I favor the proposition that everyone should be required to register before posting, I must note that it is a minority view opposed even by Jimbo, with whom I agree about some other things. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

BD didn't say anything about barring IPs from adding external links. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe IPs must already pass a Captcha to add any external link. Is that not correct? BD2412 T 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@BD: Yes, captcha is required to post an external link when one is not logged in.
@Daniel: Unregistered falls below newly registered in the hierarchy of user status. The implementation for what BD describes above would be to require at least "autoconfirmed" status to post an external link. There is no precedent for granting IPs more permissions than registered accounts: doing so would create a logical snarl and would be a disincentive to registration. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Ningauble, referring to BD's proposal, you write: "this would impact many long-term IP editors". But it wouldn't. BD suggested "No external links until you've made x number of regular edits over y number of days", so clearly "long-term IP editors" would be exempt from such a limitation. You speak as if you would want to bar IPs from adding external links altogether, but that seems idiotic to me, especially since they already have to pass a captcha to post them. (Well, I see you don't want IPs editing at all, but yeah, that is an extreme position...) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Four points in reply to Daniel:
  1. BD did not propose, he enquired whether it is possible. I replied that it is, and noted that it would need a major policy discussion.
  2. I did not speak for or against allowing IPs to post links. I noted that this group would be impacted, and followed up in a subsequent post explaining why they would be impacted. My remark about whether this group should be posting at all was intended purely as a disclosure.
  3. Note that our long term IP editors frequently have their IPA changed by their ISP, and the same IPA may be allocated to multiple users. There is no such thing as an "IP account": an unregistered user has no account and earns no confirmation status.
  4. If you think I am an idiot, you would be well advised to keep that opinion to yourself and focus instead on the issues under discussion.
I begin to wonder whether I am wasting my time in replying to you at all. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I was focusing on the issue. I said "bar[ring] IPs from adding external links altogether [...] seems idiotic to me, especially since they already have to pass a captcha to post them." I didn't say I think you are an idiot, though I am sorry if the word "idiotic" offended you somehow. (For what it's worth, I think you are smart, and I do admire your ability to take things out of context.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There is little ambiguity in ascribing a desire to someone and declaring it to be idiotic. Who else might you have meant by "you" in that sentence? There is no call for insinuating that I dissemble by misrepresenting context. If you wish to accuse me of dishonesty then you may call for a vote of confidence, otherwise your insults are not welcome. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, in "but that seems idiotic to me", the "that" refers to "bar[ring] IPs from adding external links altogether", not to your desires. I'm not going to change the offending word now that you've made such a big fuss about it. I also have no intention of calling for a "vote of confidence" just because you happen to believe in idiotic things. (Hell, I believe in idiotic things too.) Maybe it does seem to me idiotic to want to prevent IPs from editing. So what? Feel free to block me for "incivility", if you're so overly-sensitive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
In order to avoid any misunderstanding that might arise from how my remarks have been characterized above, let me make one thing clear: I have not advocated barring IP editors from posting external links. I brought it up because, recognizing the consensus for allowing unregistered editing, I believe it would be an adverse consequence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not uncomfortable with temporarily placing newly registered editors in a worse position than IP editors with respect to external links, if our persistent spam problems are coming from newly registered editors. BD2412 T 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You get spam from IPs too; I just removed some on Talk:Main Page.--Abramsky (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To do next[edit]

In the above discussion two types of action are proposed.

  1. To update the Wikiquote:Blocking policy, adding a note about permanently blocking "spam-only accounts"
  2. To create an abuse filter, which automatically blocks (more specific, I mean, disallowing edits) of new users trying to add external links

Now I would like to propose to pursue both courses of action. Concerning the abuse filter, we can begin with a pilot for a short period of time. -- Mdd (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) / 01:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nietzkov: nuisance or hoax?[edit]

Can anyone verify citations added by 200.121.207.40 (talk · contributions)? Googling the name "Nietzkov" appearing in quotes this user (and others[12]) has been adding, I find a pattern that smells like promotion of a nobody. Are celebrities really talking about him as claimed, or are we being hoaxed? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, all these quotes are either unsourced or sourced to non-existent Youtube videos, so they can be removed as unsourced. They all look pretty fishy to me, anyway.--Abramsky (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for checking the YooToob links (it is impractical with my limited bandwidth). Since this much is demonstrably bogus, I will go ahead and revert it all. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User 98.15.141.31[edit]

I have deleted a number of bogus titles created by 98.15.141.31 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISRDNStraceRBLsblock userblock log). The user's few remaining contributions correspond to genuine titles, but I do not know whether the contributed content is bogus.

Can anyone check the accuracy of the remaining contributions? If they are not affirmatively verified then I am inclined to presumptively revert/delete them due to their vandalistic provenance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

His edit to Yu-Gi-Oh! ("Say hello to the unstoppable family of monsters; The five Kuriboh brothers!") sounds plausible, though I couldn't confirm it. The dialogue in Disney's The Kid is accurate, but the one in Radio Flyer (film) seems bogus. (I'd ask him about this last one.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI, the Radio Flyer (film) dialogue was pretty close to correct (I've since fixed the page). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It turns out this is a long term vandal known at Wikipedia as the "Voice Cast Vandal". I have blocked the IP for a year. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Otherwiki[edit]

Just wondering if someone could edit Template:Otherwiki and change Wikivoyage-logo.svg to Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Mdd (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page again[edit]

Vandalism and spam there is picking up even more. Maybe now it can be semi-protected? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea of that particular page being semi-protected, considering it's the talk page for what is effectively our homepage. EVula // talk // // 15:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Broadway vandal[edit]

Could some admin semi-protect the articles: George Washington, Michelle Obama, Men in Black (film) and Men in Black II? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

This "Broadway vandal" has been around for at least three years, and has no difficulty picking new pages to deface whenever it is convenient. More than a dozen pages have been impacted.

Rather than restrict editing of random pages arbitrarily selected by the vandal, it might be better if someone could implement an abuse filter that screens for the pattern of content added. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ningauble, could you initiate the development of such an abuse filter? And/or a abuse filter such as mentioned in the #Blocking question discussion? -- Mdd (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe I could, but I am not sure that I will. I have given some thought to a filter for the Broadway Vandal, and it is on my list of things to consider doing; but I have not invested the substantial time it would take to acquire the requisite expertise with the filter tool. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Total Recall talk page[edit]

For the past few days, some idiot anon's claiming Douglas Quaid has talked to him. I've been reverting it for sometime because I don't think it adds anything to article improvement. Can we block that guy?--Eaglestorm (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eaglestorm, the first step is to give him a warning. -- Mdd (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a warning template around here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiquote:Template messages/User talk -- Mdd (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical spam.[edit]

User:125.27.105.23 has been spamming links on random articles related to medicine; might be worthwhile blocking ? --Aphorist (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a single episode that has stopped. A block would be worthwhile if the activity resumes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Spamming links to the same site has continued from multiple IP addresses, so I have added the site to the spam blacklist. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree with the addition to the spam blacklist, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Improper mischaracterization by Ningauble of another user's comment[edit]

It is alleged on my talk page[13] that I, user Ningauble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), have improperly mischaracterized the words of user Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Because I regard this as a serious allegation of misconduct, and because I have previously made a commitment to Cirt that I would submit his concerns about improper conduct on my part to this noticeboard for review, I invite Wikiquote's administrators to evaluate whether what I wrote was a mischaracterization of Cirt's words, and if such be the case, to recommend appropriate action to address any misconduct on my part.

My understanding of events is that when I joined a discussion to express opinions in support of a third contributor's edits, Cirt replied, in part, "Everything in moderation, no need for extremists, either way" and I replied, in full "'Extremists'? I invite you to reconsider your characterization of those with whom you disagree." [emphasis in original] As I understand it, the allegation is that "characterization of those with whom you disagree" misrepresents that to which "no need for extremists" refers.

In my defense I offer the following points about my understanding of the referent of Cirt's remark:

  1. In the context of the original discussion, the word "extremists" clearly and unambiguously refers to participants in the discussion, or at least to participants in the Wikiquote project, not to the merits of the question being discussed, which concerns the appropriateness of certain article content.
  2. Cirt has indicated (in discussions linked above) that this was not intended to refer to any actual individuals then participating in the discussion, but to potential future participants in the discussion. Whether considered as applicable to past, present, or future participants, describing it as a "characterization of those with whom you disagree" is equally applicable to actual or hypothetical participants, and is in no way a mischaracterization.
  3. Whether considered as an attempt to disparage current participants in the discussion, or as an attempt to pre-emptively discredit future participants, or even as a mere irrelevancy absent such intent, Cirt's remark about extremists (i.e. persons who are far outside the mainstream of society) was unmistakably and unambiguously a characterization of some people. The only assumption I made in describing his remark is that he disagrees with such people, which seems quite evident from the context.

My interpretation of these events is somewhat subjective, and is offered solely to explain why I responded to Cirt's remark in the first place, not whether the content of my response was a fair and accurate characterization of that remark. If it is determined that my response was indeed a factual misrepresentation, whether by reason of incomprehension or by deceit, understanding motive may help administrators decide upon appropriate actions to take. I replied to Cirt as I did because:

  1. Although Cirt's comment was prompted by my expressing an opinion with which he evidently disagrees, I did not assume it was a personal characterization of me individually, and my response did not suggest that this was the case. Rather, I looked upon it as an apparent attempt to discourage or discredit anyone who might express opinions extremely different from his own, by labeling such people as extremists.
  2. I consider "extremists" a rather odious characterization of anyone, though there certainly are some people to whom the appellation may be applied with accuracy. Use of such language may be marginally appropriate where user conduct is the subject of discussion, but I consider it wholly inappropriate in the discussion where it was used.
  3. "Extremists" is also a very inapt and objectively misleading way to characterize people who argue against a practice that is itself extremely rare in Wikiquote articles. (Mdd's investigation found only about 30 instances among Wikiquote's 22,000+ articles.[14]) This is not extremism far outside the mainstream, it is defense of ordinary mainstream practice.
  4. I consider it unbecoming of an administrator such as Cirt to engage in argumentum ad hominem of any sort, and I consider it a duty of administrators such as myself to encourage participants to refrain from it. For this reason, and the reasons above, I thought it was appropriate to encourage Cirt to reconsider making this sort of comment.

Although I have shared some of my motivations for my remark, please bear in mind that the substance of the complaint I am submitting for your consideration is not whether the article content under discussion is a good idea, nor whether Cirt's comment about extremists was a good idea, nor whether it was a good idea for me to respond, but is whether my response was in fact, as alleged by Cirt, a mischaracterization of his words.

Thank you for reviewing this complaint about the conduct of yours truly, Ningauble (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents: I agree that there is/was something off about the use of the word "extremists" in that context, which I initially (mis)read and interpreted as "extremism": referring to the editorial action of remove all further reading sections. I also think Cirt could do a better job using non-offensive/neutral talk-item titles. Offensive titles like "Mischaracterizations" tend to escalate things. -- Mdd (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I read the discussion as it was occurring, and I've re-read it now, and I absolutely do not feel that you mischaracterized what was written. I believe that Ningauble was correct to call him on the use of such an inflammatory term as "extremists." And I also believe that the way in which Cirt was invited to reconsider showed courtesy and actually offered a chance for clarification so that the words would not be mischaracterized. My reading of the statement (both then and now) was that Cirt felt that there were two extremes of action - either completely remove the additional links, or leave them as they are. In the end, I believe that Cirt was trying to espouse a compromise, wherein some links were cut and some remain. But that is not the way the exchange was written. I believe that Ningauble acted properly and that the use of such a term as "extremists" was inappropriate. It has been my experience that Cirt has a tendency to inflame a discussion beyond the bounds of civility quite quickly if someone does not fully agree with him. In this particular case, I believe that the resulting conflict certainly could have been avoided with a better choice of language in the discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your thoughtful deliberation. Since nobody has (yet) endorsed Cirt's allegation, I am going to resume editing Wikiquote (including areas relating to the subject of the discussion from which the allegation arose), under the rebuttable presumption that the allegation of misconduct is without merit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Thank you all for the above comments. I realize upon further reflection that my comments were inappropriate. I shall take greater care in the future to not comment in such style in subsequent discussions. I wish you all well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: As far as the matter related to the Further reading sections, I realize that community consensus does not support this. Therefore, I have voluntarily gone ahead and taken the actions to remove these myself from the relevant pages. This has since been Yes check.svgY Done. I made a note of this at Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)