Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/025

Deletion review for Sumit Chowdhury

Can Wikiquote:Deletion review#Sumit Chowdhury be closed after two weeks, or should it be advertized for wider discussion? ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the circumstances are changed, again, and the book quoted apparently has now been published, so arguments for its deletion on that point are no longer valid. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikiquote:Deletion review#Sumit Chowdhury be closed after six weeks? ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unwilling to close it, since it was a review of my decision.--Abramsky (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of copyright status of Either/Or

Could any administrator, or others interested, double check the statement I made here -- Mdd (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there in my capacity as a Wikiquote contributor. No administrative action is involved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to new developments a new comment is made here. Hereby I like to request for feedback and further assistance. -- Mdd (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of copyright status of Amy Pond

Could any administrator, or others interested, double check the statement I made here -- Mdd (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented there in my capacity as a Wikiquote contributor. No administrative action is involved. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now deleted the article.--Abramsky (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Marciano

Semi-protection might be appropriate on Talk:Rocky Marciano as a variable IP seems to be posting what are similar remarks and external links. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, thanks for the notification. Mdd (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion#Augusto_De_Luca

Just wanted to gauge the opinions of others on this discussion, which was recently closed with a 'Delete' outcome. While I'm still not convinced about whether or not the page should remain, the closure with the cited reason bothers me. I realize that while the discussion was left open for much too long and some outcome was needed, I maintain that the outcome should have been that there was no consensus either way (considering that there were two 'Keeps' and two 'Deletes' - plus my comment saying that if sources in English were provided, I would vote to 'Keep'). Additionally, it appears to me that the closer did not even consider the lack of consensus, but rather inserted their own reason for deletion ("The subject does not seem to be very notable."). Nothing against this user, but to me that sets a bad precedent and in some ways invalidates the VFD process. Anyone else have any thoughts? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the circumstances I personally think it is regrettable, that this article is removed although I vote for removal. Now in the past weeks I noticed different similar cases, and noticed the following differences:

Augusto De Luca, an Italian photographer, who hasn't made any comments in English/American newspapers or other reliable sources, and whose work also doesn't seem to be bespoken in international reliable source
Yuri Khanon, a Russian composer, who hasn't made any comments in English/American newspapers or other English/American reliable sources, but whose work is bespoken in some English/American newspapers.(see discussion here)
Sumit Chowdhury, Indian top manager and management author, whose comments have been published in several books (in English), and whose performance has been described in several sources.

Personally I think it is a minimum requirement, that there should be some comments quoted in reliable sources. If this is not the case, I think one indeed could say "The subject does not seem to be very notable." -- Mdd (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abramsky's close does look a bit like a super-vote, but since all other admins & 'crats had already voted, he was probably just trying to be helpful by closing it himself. What I would have done, if I were him, would be to vote: "Delete. The subject does not seem to be very notable", and then close it with the more neutral: "Result was: Delete", which would make it (the closing) at least appear less controversial. Not that I think the article should be deleted. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have been misinterpreted. I reviewed the discussion, and it appeared to me from the discussion that "The subject does not seem to be very notable". Surely my job was to consider the arguments and not just count votes. Actually, I would never vote in a disputed discussion and then close in accordance with my own vote; that would look like a bias. I had no involvement with the Yuri Khanon article.--Abramsky (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, when deciding based on the strength of the arguments rather than their quantity, I think it is important to do more than state the conclusion. Rather, it would be very helpful to explain the basis for the decision, identifying things like the following:

Arguments that are, or are not, well grounded in policies, practices, and precedents.
Arguments that raise overriding considerations vs. those that are side issues.
Arguments that are, or are not, well supported by evidence or logic.
Participants who are not registered, or who have few or no other contributions.
& etc.

Of course, nobody wants to read a 5000 word decision here, or write one, but briefly explaining the rationale has the benefit of clarifying what was decisive for the case at hand, making it understandable to the participants, and has the further benefit of identifying specific points that may be used as precedent, or used in reviewing the case, or even in formulating or revising policies and guidelines. The more inconclusive the "!vote" count, the more helpful it is to explain the basis for the conclusion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call for OTRS volunteers

Hello Wikiquotians!

As a thread on Wikiquote talk:Contact us revealed a bit ago, we don't really have many active Wikiquote participants monitoring the Wikiquote queue on OTRS, the main contact system for e-mails to the Wikimedia projects. We could use some help from experienced editors from Wikiquote who are articulate, patient, and comfortable answering questions from new users. We would especially appreciate those who also have cross-wiki experience on other sister projects like Commons and Wikipedia, since those tend to have the highest number of e-mails, but don't hesitate to apply if Wikiquote is the only project you're active on — it doesn't hurt to have some people who specialize in different areas! The time commitment is not too high and you can also sign up for e-mail notifications when new tickets come in so you don't need to constantly login to check the queues. You can read more about the job and people we look for on the Meta-Wiki pages.

I hope some of you take the time to apply at m:OTRS/Volunteering. Please let me know if you have any questions! Cbrown1023 talk 23:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone out there? Cbrown1023 talk 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the lateness of my reply. (I also got your private message.) I have given serious consideration to enrolling at "Sister projects::Wikiquote" on OTRS; but I am not sure more email is what is most lacking in my life right now. (I did volunteer to be a Wikiquote liaison to the Teahouse, but in more than two years I have received a grand total of zero inquiries and referrals.)

If I could be persuaded that it might help to improve and increase participation at Wikiquote by people who are genuinely interested in our compendium of quotations, then I might reconsider; but on the infrequent occasions when I noticed OTRS activity on-wiki, I have not seen that happen. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the vast majority of the queries we answer are from people you wouldn't see on-wiki or don't directly cause any actions on-wiki at all. OTRS volunteers are the contact people for the projects that external users who often don't know how to edit reach out to. Most of the questions are pretty easy to answer for someone who understands the project and there's less work for everyone with more people helping out, such as link exchanges ("sorry, no!"), error fixing (either "you can edit" or "I've fixed it, but here's how you can edit"), general content inquiries (either answer it or "see WQ:RD"), and other questions and comments from people using the project or interested in contributing. Occasionally, there are also e-mails simply thanking Wikiquote and only need a follow-up.

As I said, the time commitment is pretty low, especially if multiple people help out and if you utilize the boilerplates to help structure your responses. You also wouldn't get notifications of new tickets unless you signed up for them, so it would create very little additional e-mail sent to your personal inbox. All you do is log in to a shared ticketing system and respond to the tickets.

If no one wants to help out, that's fine, we do still have a good amount of cross-wiki volunteers with access to the Wikiquote tickets... but then I shouldn't see threads like the one on Wikiquote talk:Contact us complaining that there is a lack of Wikiquote participation. Cbrown1023 talk 22:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't complain about any "lack of Wikiquote participation", I complained about deceiving language and wrong information in the Contacts page. I'm still waiting for someone to correct it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a particular form of infantile troll-vandalism active here again

The user Bildo Sploot‎ (talk · contributions) has made an edit typical of a long term vandal-troll which will be familiar to some admins. I encountered a similar edit within recent weeks by Simbluxo (talk · contributions) and I believe a permanent block on these accounts and any related ones would be appropriate. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

I see that "Simbluxo" has already been blocked, but I do not expect this person's activities to entirely disappear, if they remain so immature after all this time, as to still be inclined to such vandalism. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hortonwho (talk · contributions) seems to be another manifestation of this particular problem. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also as Iksploot Fafrook (talk · contributions) ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to update the abuse filter for this pattern (filter#2), which has not proved very effective, but for some inexplicable reason the system says I do not have permission to do so. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ningauble: That is because that filter has the 'Block autopromote' action and local sysops do not have abusefilter-modify-restricted right. You'll have to request assistance from stewards. --Glaisher (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  It would not even let me remove that deprecated action. Local administration of this filter appears to be entirely locked out. If the Stewards are the sole owners of this filter then they are welcome to exercise their stewardship – it is out of my hands. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could request to add abusefilter-modify-restricted to local sysops' permissions set at bugzilla after getting consensus from the community. m:SRM if you want stewards to remove the block autopromote action from the filters. --Glaisher (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A twerp has again edited in this manner, this time as Lallo (talk · contributions). ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 11:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user is now blocked. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I bring your attention to this. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone update the Recent Changes Board?

New admin request by me: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Goldenburg111. Thanks! --Golden_burg111 17:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The admin requests should be given to me today since the due date (September 6, 2014) is today, thanks. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Requests_for_adminship/Goldenburg111 --Golden_burg111 15:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 2014·09·10

I was late making a selection for the present QOTD, and the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/September 10, 2014 will have to be moved into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/September 10, 2014 by an admin. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

Done, cheers! BD2412 T 04:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was the latest the selection had been in quite a while. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 04:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter for car games spam

If you want a filter for the new "car games" spam bot, try:

(old_size+user_age==0)
& new_wikitext irlike ".*\[https?:\/\/.+ car.game.*\].*"

If you would like to opt-in to automatically receiving such filters from stewards, ask if it is possible on m:SN. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That particular pattern of spam appears to have been transient, and a filter is not needed.[1]

On the broader issue, we have recently been "opted in" to the Global AbuseFilter by the powers that be,[2] so there is no need to ask. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That change should not have been approved without wider discussion. User:Glaisher and I are soon going to send a message telling all opted-in wikis how to opt out or comment on the RfC. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XMen First Class

Some anon from the same IP group keeps bloating the article above limitations. He's been warned but just too damn pigheaded. Can the article be locked down? --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QOTDs for November 2014

The project page for the next QOTD at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 10, 2014 is now proteccted from general editing, and the QOTD layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/November 10, 2014 will have to be moved into it by an admin. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be leaving now, for at least an hour or two — but just making another remark here before I do to make this more noticeable — QOTD on main page is currently blank. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ UDScott (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 03:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A similar procedure will have to be done to move the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/November 12, 2014 into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 12, 2014. I am currently trying to select and develop something for the 13th before it is closed to general editing also. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ UDScott (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. That was the quickest response yet. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 17:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again this will have to be done in moving the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/November 24, 2014 into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 24, 2014; I will attempt to come up with a quote and layout for the 25th before it also is locked to general editing, but have to be leaving soon, and might not get it done until later today. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 16:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC) This is still is awaiting attention by an admin, with less than an hour before the QOTD should be posted to the main page. An ADMIN will, of course, have to attend to this, as general editors, whether actually more trustworthy to keep to their actual commitments or not, cannot edit the page, currently. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Much thanks to Miszatomic (talk · contributions) for taking care of this, and one similar situation earlier in the month that didn't get posted here. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Power outages, among other things, prevented me from doing much here earlier, yesterday and today, and the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/November 28, 2014 will also have to be moved into the project page Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 28, 2014 by an admin. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 23:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ UDScott (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 02:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the busiest month in late entries in quite a while, perhaps ever. I noticed that today's layout was locked very early, so took time to contemplate the options more before making a choice, and the layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/November 29, 2014 will also have to be moved into the project page Wikiquote:Quote of the day/November 29, 2014 by an admin. I have to be leaving soon, but expect to be back and have something ready for the 30th before it locks up. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Much thanks to Miszatomic (talk · contributions) for again promptly taking care of this. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Master (Doctor Who)

Could any of you please indef block the user 197.86.169.33, he keeps disrupting the Master (Doctor Who) page and adding quotes from an entirely different character. He won't listen to me when I point out Wikipedia's policy of canon, he keeps reverting when other users apart from me revert it, he won't discuss it, he won't compromise so there for unfortunately I think this is the only way to stop him.--TBBC (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit war has been going on a lot longer than any one particular IP address has been used, so a block is not likely to put a stop to it. Therefore, at the risk of protecting the wrong version, I have semi-protected the article for the time being.
TBBC has made a good faith attempt to resolve the matter on the talk page, where interested contributors may discuss it. (My own preference, in keeping with the guideline for Fictional characters, would be to merge this content, subject to the Limits on quotations, into articles on the works actually quoted here.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this. I have just semi-protected for a month. I hope that doesn't muck up what Ningauble did!--Abramsky (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had protected Master (Doctor Who), which was the locus of edit warring, as logged here. Whatever you did does not appear to have had a logged effect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About a certain IP user...

This IP (95.172.74.62) is belittling me while undoing my good faith edits to Caddyshack. Regardless of why he made his edits, he made an outrageous claim in his edit summary that he knew about my personal information. I want that edit summary removed (and let it apply to any future edit summaries that reveal personal information), lest it goes public. WikiLubber (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I request a checkuser report on User:RareBread687.

I just reverted this edit by User:RareBread687. I noticed in the course of so doing that the user stated in the edit, "Do not revert this comment or else I else I will kill you". I feel that I am therefore obligated to determine whether User:RareBread687 is located in one of the many jurisdictions where it is a crime to make a death threat over the Internet, and if so, to report this to the appropriate legal authorities for investigation. To this end, I would appreciate a Checkuser report on this editor. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Presumably, this is the same editor as User:I am Mary, Mother of Jesus, who has now threatened, "I will kill u, but rape u first" to another editor. BD2412 T
I endorse the request for checkuser on these multiple accounts (also User:I am Jesus of Nazareth) being used in a pattern of disruption and harssment, so that the underlying IP or range can be blocked. The request needs to be posted at m:Steward requests/Checkuser. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikimedia Legal is now handling the situation. Cheers! BD2412 T 14:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a case of multiple IP vandals...

Multiple IP addresses have been vandalizing the following pages:

VeggieTales

The Simpsons/Season 6 (and others, but this one in particular)

SpongeBob SquarePants

Adding unnecessarily excessive emphasis to quotes in which a character screams. I request that all these IPs be blocked indefinitely and that all pages they vandalized be protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]