Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/039

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Please remove blocking javascript.

I placed a self-enforced WikiBreak enforcer for this Wiki at User:Djm-leighpark/common.js and would be grateful if an administrator could delete that file to clear the block. I have particularly decided I would like to keep some momentum on reducing the number of mainspace articles on Special:UnconnectedPages (now down to 677).I'd prefer this is all done under the Djm-leighpark user for consistency including between Wikidata and here. Thankyou. -- Djm-mobile tac 21:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Chimpanzees

This page is frequently vandalised. Airtransat236 (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LightOrDarkTower

Special:Contribs/LightOrDarkTower — vandalism only account. Styyx (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Styyx, this account has been blocked and globally locked. However, reports to block users should be made to WQ:VIP not the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. --Ferien (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks, noted. Styyx (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Shrek

Hello there. This page is a target from an LTA. Airtransat236 (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done for 3 months due to excessive vandalism.--Ferien (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create-protect Siavash Shahsavari

Seems to be the target of sock puppets and cross-wiki abuse. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion interference

I've reverted this vote removal but a sysop might like to review if further action needs to be taken or activities reviewed by checkusers at a global level. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Report Special:Contribs/HaxinMarvin

Vandalism/Long-term abuse. Tryvix1509 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done by UDScott. Tryvix1509, please put this sort of thing on WQ:VIP in future, this is where reports to block vandal users should be made. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting Special:Contributions/172.56.105.167

Vandalism. Svartava (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done --Ferien (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible issues on Special:UnconnectedPages and reporting difficulties

My understanding is that the special pages Pages not connected to items contains a list of pages not connected to wikidata items (I'm only interested in the main namespace 0 here). However I seem to have come across a small number of articles which are sitelinked from Wikidata but are not appearing on that list. I have no proof but this may from a glitch about a week ago. I've tried re-doing Mike Gabbard's sitelink from Wikidata but it doesn't seem to help.

  1. Mike Gabbard
  2. Victor Lyngdoh
  3. Launay Saturné
  4. Ousman Badjie
  5. Simon Atallah
  6. Alapati Lui Mataeliga
  7. Victoria Duffield
  8. Fintan Gavin
  9. Mike Moon (politician)
  10. Pedro Pierluisi
  11. Tom Tiffany
  12. Milan Stipić
  13. Liban Yusuf Osman
  14. .. (some may have been missed) ...

Obviously reporting at Wikiquote:Bug reports is no longer possible and reporting is to [Mediazilla https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/] which is now redirected to Wikimedia Phabricator. All tools/central stuff is handled by my alt Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga - unfortunately Phabricator seems stuck acknowledging Deirge and requests to send emails are being met with messages such as "Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes.See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information. ...". I (actually it would be Deirge) will not use IIRC following a what was negative BLP attitude and experience at that place about 5 years ago when asking for advice doing my first enWP article (some/many were very helpful but one left me swearing I'd never use that place again if that was the attitude to be encountered). I suspect this might magically clear itself at some point. I'm not really wasting any more time on this. Thankyou. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 06:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done: Some magic has happened and these have now disappeared off of the unconnected pages list. How and why this has been resolved I do not know, but it has been resolved. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 09:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on User talk:CastJared

Hello, there is certain disruptive IP edits on my talk page. This needs protection. CastJared (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect my talk page

I'm finally tired of dealing with these trolls. Please semi-protect them for a while, such as a month. Thank you. Lemonaka (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin gadget

Hi, please could a bureaucrat give themselves interface admin and add Saroj Uprety to the admin gadget and remove Miszatomic from it. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Peter1c#Derek Malone-France

Hello, could an uninvolved admin take a look at my Prod nomination here and think about restoring the article/discussing at VfD. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferien: Y Done: I, a not so humble muggle, raised Wikiquote:Deletion review#Derek Malone-France and the article's been restored, albeit that DRV awaits closure. My view is that an article nominated for PROD and subsequently deleted as an uncontested expired PROD will be soft deleted by an admin/sysop at the end of 7 days providing that PROD is not obviously spurious, for example if Jimmy Wales was PRODed. Admins will undoubtably warn individuals making spurious PRODs especially if repeatedly doing such nominations and take such warnings or order actions as necessary. To be clear to everyone it is the deleting admin (not the PROD nominator) that takes responsibility for that deletion. However they will not be expected to take more that a cursory glance at the matter and will have seen to have acted in good faith unless they've just deleted Jimbo. It is to the deleting admin that requests for restore of an expired PROD should first be made, in this case UDSCott (which was not directly done in this case) and the expectation is the deleting would immediately restore as a contested PROD which has not had a deletion discussion (barring a good reason not to do this). However unless a very good explanation has been given I would expect the restorer to initiated a VFD discussion would immediately be initiated unless good reasons given or unless the PROD nomination issues have been addressed. (This is as it ought be for a contested PROD). If the deleting admin does not respond or responds with a possibly controversial reason not to restore then in that case then a WQ:DRV should be raised indicating the response or non-response from the from the deleting admin. I would expect a restore to be honoured within a reasonable time span (or a reason why not given) but equally the restorer might choose to initiate a VFD immediately on restore. In general I think I'm seeing a general hestitency in the community to initiate a restore request on an expired PROD, and a good faith reluctance by admins to do such restores on simple request. My view is very much this should be a lightweight simple request that should be simply honored if the requestors can contain themselves from not assuming good faith with others involved. Obviously if admins feel disruptive restore requests are being made warnings etc. should result. The case of a restore of an article deleted a by discussed VFD is obviously completely different. @Robin Loup, Ottawahitech, Peter1c, ᘙ: in case you are interested. -- User:Djm-leighpark(a)talk 10:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am interested, but it is not clear to me that anyone else is. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are deletions driving away good ENWQ contributors? Any opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to Rename a page

Hello, I am looking to rename wikiquote page on Guru Govind Singh to Guru Gobind Singh which is how the Guru is known more prominently including in Wikipedia entries. I was unable to find the option to rename it myself. Can somebody please help? Surinderjeet Singh (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done --ᘙ (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failed links on contributions

Hello, the links of global contribution on Special:Contributions page seemed to be outdated.

It was moved to guc.toolforge.org a long time ago, but the link is still redirect to the old one, https://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/ , it may need interface admin or sysop right to change the link, anyone want to have a try?

Thank you.Lemonaka (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks Lemonaka (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for Anatol Lieven

Please consider page protection for Anatol Lieven due to probably osck re-applying problematic content to make their point. -- DeirgeDel tac previously Djm-leighpark DeirgeDel tac 18:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evree1sok is a sockpuppet of User:Libraryclerk0191, banned last year for running a POV-pushing sock farm. Previous noticeboard threads about him include Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean_up_on_Aisle_Five and Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/037#Legacy_of_banned_user_User:Libraryclerk0191.
He has a couple of other active socks, in need of blocking:
And a whole bunch of IPs --
There are likely others; I suspect he has been editing since we shut down his socks last year, but clearly we didn't get them all. In some ways this is a shame because he (or they/she) add useful quotes from Plato, Addison, and many others, and on the topic of theosophy - but when it comes to current events they're full-on Russian propaganda/Ukraine is Nazi/America commits all the world's war crimes/ etc. etc. without even the slightest hint of self-doubt that maybe "truth" means something broader than what they're pushing. Seriously, I don't think our WQ:NPOV policy is just a suggestion. Antandrus (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the {{npov}} placed on Talk:Overpopulation but not on Overpopulation - is this how it is supposed to be done at ENWQ? BTW what is supposed to happen when this template is placed? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Ottawahitech Lemonaka (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this tag was first placed on the talk page well over a decade ago, on July 29th, 2010, I propose that the tag be removed entirely. The article has changed dramatically since that time.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@C.J. Griffin: I am opposing your good faith proposal here simply because the your proposal here has drifting this thread off topic. I suggest you consider raising the proposal on the talk page of the article itself. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 18:31, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I reposted it there.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked all the accounts and a couple of the IPs that were recently active. Thank you for reporting. --Ferien (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ferien, could you possibly catch a couple more? Clearly this person is not interested in following our policies, and is blithely evading the ban still.
I love when sockpuppets lecture us about "truth" and "dishonesty". Antandrus (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to process deletion queues

I am disappointed in the failure of admins here to process the deletion queues; perhaps most obviously VFD but to an extent also probably some PRODs; and some SPEEDDie deletions and some COPYVIOs. I am aware I have loaded the VFD listed more than is ideal with my process of tackling the SpecialUnconnectedPages(main) queue but getting VFDs processed is an important part of continuing to manage that list. While that list still has quite a large number of "history" (pre-2023) article on it I am particularly hot on managing new articles added to the list to watch for anomalies further back. This is perhaps especially important in respect of my latest UTRS unblock rejections on the English Wikipedia and interactions with the person who is seeking to use a bot to assist with sitelinking at Wikiquote:Village pump#Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata. I think the community loses confidence if admins cannot manage those deletion processes assertively, and that by no means means agreeing with me. That may mean making mistakes/errors but there are appeal processes to deal with that and good faith appeals may need to be dealt with appropriately. Thankyou. -- Djm-leighpark(a)talk 03:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this is a failure. I did delete a few pages when you posted that, but you are correct that there's a backlog. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other admins, etc.: Take a look at species:Special:Watchlist, where I have edited species:MediaWiki:Watchlist-details to call out some problem categories. Would it be useful for me to do the same here at MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Saroj Uprety (I don't thank Saroj enough for all they do) and maybe others had a nibble at the VFD list about a week ago and I thank sysops for that. And I realise admin's are time constrained and some may not feel comfortable dealing with the VfDs, or want to be sure of not making mistakes or whatever. But leaving the VfD list stagnant with 70 on it is bad for the community in my opinion. And the community have stopped participating in VfDs, possibly through this lack of movement, though VfD are not really healthy but more of a necessary evil. At some point I'll need to call in outside help; possibly global sysops; possibility asking a respected AfD closer from enWQ to see if they'd help ou for bit; or tapping one of the enWQ RFA proposers to see if there's potential admin candidate who might benefit from a little experience in the role in a sister wiki first. And admins and others need to remember its not (even here) votes that count for everything in these discussions, if the closer feels votes are not backed by policy or there has been e.g. canvassing they are fully entitled to go against the vote tally; but would be expected to give an explanation for doing so. -- DeirgeDel tac 19:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC) (formerly here as Djm-leighpark)[reply]

Drafting on this problem, I'd like to give a reply with useful answer, but.... it is in fact something related to activeness of the whole project. The low numbers of contributors active here is a disastrous problem. Lemonaka (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Believe you are and admin here and per your enWP AfD record have some experience in deletion closures. Although VfDs here are slightly different with the nominator having to vote if necessary and perhaps more of an emphasis on tally rather than consensus though with the closer needing to ensure votes are compliant with policies and guidelines (if I understand it correctly). Could I therefore request you try to tackle the list of stagnant open VfDs. I'm hoping 30, 40 or 50 reasonably uncontroversals closures could be achieved in the first pass. Realise you may have RL reasons/commitments for not wishing to do this but I think it would help out if you could. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 11:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll see what I can do this weekend. BD2412 T 17:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bunch of the VfDs. BD2412 T 07:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

Hello! I was randomly patrolling for vandalism with m:SWViewer and noticed a lot of vandalism in this article. (Check the history.) I thought you might want to be aware because some of the words included looked like they could be captured by edit filters. Maybe you can modify the existing filters as to have less cases like these in the near future. - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi: Thanks for raising the Edit-filter issue, again. This topic keeps popping up both here and on the Village-pump on a regular basis. Here is one example I was involved in: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Filter_again.
One thing I would like to know is who maintains and ensures the correct operation of the Edit-filter on enwq. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech, the abuse filter system is maintained by local administrators and global interface maintainers. --Ferien (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ferien.
I have two questions for anyone:
  1. Re: local administrators and global interface maintainers: Sounds like very large Group of people. How do you all resolve disagreements?
  2. Re: global interface maintainers: I am not familiar with this rights-group. Is there a link describing this Group?
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: m:Abuse filter maintainers (linked) perform uncontroversial maintenance of abuse filters in other wikis. Most decisions regarding abuse filters are made by administrators for this project. It's very rare for there to be disagreements with abuse filters but if there are, then we can resolve them through abuse filter comments, on talk pages or through email if the abuse filter is private. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection Susan Wojcicki

Susan Wojcicki requires page protection and revision deletion. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How not to do it

I am not totally impressed by the actions, albeit good faith, on this Wiki, with regards to the Susan Wojcicki article. I'm going through a little bit of (post-Covid) fatigue at the moment so I'm not running on 4 cylinders and a little frustrated and grumpy: -- DeirgeDel tac 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @UDScott: Per [deletion log for the Susan Wojcicki article] on you've had to do a fair number of deletions on this page and the point was surely reached where is should have been salted to avoid the attacker wasting all of our time. However your deletion at 20:52, 2 March 2023 UTC may well have been triggered by my request at Special:Diff/3258548 but by that point in my opinion the speedy deletion was against policy as the top revision contained a valid article put there by myself. See my request Special:Diff/3258529 requesting a restore. I totally AGF UDScott's actions were good faith and while not in my opinion optimal were nonetheless reasonable as sysops have to deal with things in real time amid RL commitments and stuff can always be sorted in due course. I had the though to raise a DRV after 48 hr which is the correct procedure as I understand it per policy. However events have transpired to make that route undesirable. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ottawahitech: Following yet another attack incarnation of the page at 16:35, 3 March 2023‎ UTC you used the same technique to convert that incarnation of the page into a valid article [1]. However my concern is the choice of quote about can possibly be viewed as yet another attack on the subject or an attempt to disparage the subject. Its very difficult to clearly context the context of that valid quote and without that context it constitute a attack. I am also aware of your habit of, in my view, taking indirect unsubstantiated inappropriate comments against administrators and I have concern you may have chosen that quote to do that and thus indirectly supporting the anon IP attack. Overall my opinion was it was a poor choice of quote and might fail WQ:QLP but that's a knife edge and I'm tired and may be reading that the wrong way. But in my view even with AGF an unfortunate choice of quote. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments, DeirgeDel. Yes I agree it is very important to be careful about what we write about living people, not because WQ:QLP is official policy by consensus of one on enwq, but because it makes sense to me.
    Here is my dilemma, and I hope you can offer some advice to enwq content builders: I was looking at recent changes and vaguely recognized the name Wojcicki which in hindsight was for a different Wojcicki (Anne). I knew that the this was definitely a notable woman, was hoping some of the heavyweight content builders will contribute more. To be honest I did not check carefully the quote that I copied from Ben Shapiro, but assumed that since it was accepted on that page, it was OK. Maybe I should have been more careful, and maybe not. If I did not save this article from deletion ENWQ would still not have a page about the CEO of YouTube from 2014 to 2023 Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @koavf Per Special:Diff/3259171 please be careful adding content to pages in case an anon IP has just subtly vandalised it as it is much harder to catch the issue when it is not top edit. As an admin you also had the option of applying page protection and would have hoped you had considered this. You've not done anything wrong but I'm suggesting possible alterative options in future. Thankyou -- DeirgeDel tac 00:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, more QC is better. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding MAbot to WQ:VIP and WQ:VP

As discussed with @Koavf before, I found this project already had a bot for archiving, we can just use a template to make it active on such pages to replace manually archiving. If there is a consensus for this, I'd like to have a test first on my user talk page and then to the specific pages such as WQ:VIP and WQ:VP. Lemonaka (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm now testing on my talk page. Lemonaka (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf There's still something not set properly, we need to manually update headers. For example, this page Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard's header is a little bit lagging, the latest archive is Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/038, but the link on the side box is direct to Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/037. This cannot be done by bots. Lemonaka (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf Settled down. If there are anything goes wrong, please revert these edits for adding script Lemonaka (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've suspended (commented out) archiving on VP as the archive parameter would need to be "archive = Wikiquote:Village pump archive %(counter)d" rather than "archive = Wikiquote:Village pump archive %(counter)03d" to match the current archive format of that page. There's also {{Village pump archives}} and {{Village pump archives/search}} to consider. I've only taken a very quick look. -- DeirgeDel tac 09:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC) I've also done the same on WQ:VIP pending descision on archive format being %03d" (015, 016, 017 ...) or "%d" (12, 13, 14 ...); the latter matching the current format. Thankyou -- DeirgeDel tac 09:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Holding, first test on my own talk page before settling again {{Village pump archives}} needs to be edited manually or has some parameter to set. Lemonaka (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MABot operator here: I spotted in the bot logs today that you're trying to archive the village pump in pages which are not subpages of Wikiquote:Village pump. When the archiving script was coded this was explicitly disabled to prevent disruption unless a special key-override is generated. As you can see, MABot has not edited WQ:VP at all. If you wish my bot to archive your VP as well, please ping me/leave me a talk page message once you agree on the archiving configuration and I can take care of reconfiguring the bot. In any case, please note the limitations I raised in the request for approval. Sincerely, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata

Please see: wq:Village_pump#Need_consensus_from_members_of_this_community_for_connecting_pages_to_wikidata. I realize that some admins here like User:Ningauble do-not-believe/did-not-believe? that ENWQ is part of a global wikmedia community. However, surely more than one ENWQ admin supports this initiative? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, but one flaw I see in this request for support is that nowhere is it explained the purpose of the request, the benefits to be realized, and why connecting to Wikidata is something we should support. It was simply assumed that this was something that benefits WQ. While the idea of automating something that some users have been doing seems like a good thing in the abstract, no one has yet explained why it is necessary to do so in the first place. I have never pretended to be as technically savvy as many users - I focus more on content, but in all my years here, the use of Wikidata has never been talked much about or explained and I have personally never even used it. If you really wish to have support for a proposal, the first step should be to be sure that you have explained it to those from whom you are asking for support. Since this had not yet occurred, I have sat out from the discussion. I also don't feel that disparaging the opinions of another admin is very helpful either - especially since we have few enough admins as it is. When I read the discussion at the provided link, it also does not appear that they opposed the use of Wikidata, but rather the tone applied to a user to drive behavior. In any case, if you wish for better participation in the discussion, I suggest better communication on the benefits of a proposal and less digs at admins. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Ningauble (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also way concerned of an unnecessarily disparaging remark against an admin who was quite correctly indicating that a valued wikiquote contributor should not be harassed into making the wikidata to Wikiquote sitelink. The manually process for doing for articles that claim an associated English Wikipedia article is typically quite easy and quick (on a desktop) ... From the WikiQuote article first copy the wikiquote title to the cut paste buffer, click through the claimed English Wikipedia article, check both Wikiquote and Wikipedia articles are actually about the same subject, then trom the English Wikipedia article locate the "Wikidata item" link to get to the associated wikidata item. At the wikidata item locate the "Wikiquote box" (it will be in the set of sitelink boxes which are either on the right or down the bottom). Providing there's not already a line for the "en" Wikiquote (in which case stop) edit the wikiquote box, on the new line replace "wiki" with "en" whereopen a "page" item will appear the right and paste your copy/paste buffer there and press "publish" and while these are relatively easy to fully automate there are some benefits to doing in manually (45s) during "page curation". I might be dropping in to this zoom at some point (not yet sure when) and discussing a little about sitelinking there. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ DeirgeDel: Thanks for the zoom-link to the Meetup/UK virtual/16 on META. Will minutes or a video of this online-meeting be publicly available at some point? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech The zoom meeting pretty informal but there is moderator, but I'm hoping to discuss some Wikiquote topics at about 20:30 UTC. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, is user:Ferien the only enwq-admin who wants to have a w:Wikipedia:Bots. connecting to w:WikiData? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GRP bypassed semi-protect, maybe need to change

GRP has bypassed semi-protect for a lot of time on Pope Pius X, they registered some account, but without any edits, such as user:Koakoamee and user:Stillmightyone, waiting until they got autoconfirmed and then started vandalised. Can we add a little edit count requirement to auto-confirmed? For example, 4 to 10 edits to become auto-confirmed

@Antandrus, Koavf, UDScott, BD2412: and anyone who is interested in this issue. Lemonaka (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems wise to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really up that count to nearer 25. -- DeirgeDel tac 01:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's firstly discuss need or need not, then discuss the best number for it. Lemonaka (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences of failure to do timely administration

I previously initiated a section #Failure to process deletion queues due to concerns about failure to process the VFD queue. Thankyou to admins/sysops who have tried to bring that queue down, and I certainly appreciate we all from time to time may need to juggle voluntary work here with RL situations. However here are some of my perceptions of the the consequences of that failure to administrate: -- DeirgeDel tac 07:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for Taste the Blood of Dracula

Hello,

Since 23 October 2021, Taste the Blood of Dracula is vandalized. Could you set a page protection?

Regards NicoScribe (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Libraryclerk0191 sockpuppets continue to reappear

This is a concise version of the thread above on Anatol Lieven, and hopefully will get some action. We have a recurring problem with this person, who blithely ignores WQ's policies on abusing multiple accounts as well as - and maybe most prominently of all - Neutral Point of View.

Current socks are:

There may be others, of course. I wonder if leaving most of his edits as is actually encourages him, but that's another issue. I pinged User:Ferien earlier as he did the initial blocks, but he may not be around. Vermont - this may require a checkuser; this person is prolific and some of these accounts may only be sporadically active. Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • These entries likely being made by a state actor, or one or more people give flags that they are state actor such as the CIA. But fundamentally if they keep within the guidelines, and keep the lead sections neutral, they are in practice unstoppable in terms of getting their view on US / Russian / Ukraine actions - diplomacy whatever. The fact my request for #Page protection for Anatol Lieven was ignored makes it pretty pointless trying to do much about this. The are actions that could be taken but there are countermoves to those. Sign. -- DeirgeDel tac 02:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong DeirgeDel, guess again. Your attempts to censor important, relevant truths were noted. The objections to publishing the truth here, are quite understandable, and are clearly made by a combination of state actors & brainwashed victims of the USA's massive information warfare operations. Even when 200 million people are led to believe a busload of lies, they are still lies. They can fool most, but not all of the people. Corruption in the USA is like a cancerous tumor that must be stopped before it kills us all. Some of the admins here on WQ are very corrupt, obviously & sadly. That too will pass sooner than you might think. Anutherconcerned (talk) 03:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I looked, the WQ rules indicated that editors may use multiple names as long as one has a "good reason". If an inactive,$uddenly unknown, foreign WQ admin come$ out of nowhere (14 March 2022, and bans an editor in a political situation (as was my experience 14 March 2022), and if some cunning, hateful, establishment hugging/POV pushers/hecklers, including Antandrus label that editor a "sock puppet", & use that label as an excuse to remove hundreds of quotations (with no discussion), quotations that resident admins had not objected to, that does not mean that the person they have attacked & labeled a "sock puppet" is actually guilty of violating any of wikipedia's rules. It does means that corruption is a problem. As many know, to the detriment of the project, a number of hard working, very dedicated editors here have been run off for questionable reasons, labeled sock puppets - without a trial or fair hearing, while questionable, fanatical characters who have no respect for the beneficent principles wikipedia was founded on, push the establishment's POV while claiming to be NPOV. It seems their superiors may have carefully studied the techniques used in Orwell's 1984. Clearly corruption is a problem at wikipedia- but only for now. It can't & won't last forever. Thanks & Best wishes. Anutherconcerned (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anutherconcerned: Specific diffs rather than W:WP:WAGUEWAVE allegations please. Yes I am brainwashed by a million things; only God knows the truth whatever that is. From my viewpoint who is who here is difficult, is Antandrus CIA?, are you CND, GRU, MSS, a member of the Theosophical Society? I don't know. I do know I've tried to declare all the other accounts I edit/have edited under and the odd IP edit I've done is most by mistake; and indeed all my edits are "noted" in page histories albeit some are only visible to those with requisite privileges? But Anutherconcerned, specifically what if other accounts have you edited under, and have you used IP's to edit? You would possibly seem to have an association with Evree1sok for example, though I am open to that not being the case. If you have information regarding admin corruption then I would expect you to forward to for example the global stewards. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 06:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for suggesting contact with global stewards -will aim to connect with one who has not been corrupted & is not overloaded. Someone here might wonder:
A "Japanese", "WQ admin" user name: Aphaia - who was/IS banned from Japanese wikipedia since 2007(!) https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%88%A9%E7%94%A8%E8%80%85:Aphaia - who had zero posts between 6 Dec 2021 & 14 March 2022) suddenly, without warning, apparently assumed malicious intent of libraryclerk0191, condemned & blocked him for a year, (with no warning or discussion) in March 2022 & proceeded to censor/delete much arguably good valuable, information that had been posted: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Aphaia  ??
Then Almost a month later, WQ Admin "Ferien" on 11 April 2022 changed block settings for Libraryclerk0191: "expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment: also disruption w/ false information / suspecting Russian propaganda... abusing multiple accounts)" - also with no warning or discussion of his unsubstantiated allegations. Acting as an employee on the payroll? Following orders? Maybe just a good, patriotic citizen?
Aphaia/Ferien apparently sided with those who want permanent war, who are apparently cunning & proud of their abilities to habitually lie, cheat & steal- to get their way- apparently highly skilled in the art of deception & information domination - using fair words to cloak their foul deeds.
Clearly they pushed the establishment POV & cause disruption of democratic process, honest discourse, with false information & propaganda. Apparently Abusing their 'power' as WQ admins, apparently in support of those who stand for endless wars based on lies:  ::https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Libraryclerk0191
Were Aphaia, Ferien (person or persons) were acting on orders?
Clearly their actions indicated that they were quick to judge, condemn, censor & block - and anxious to control the information and keep the establishment's version of the situations the dominate theme on WQ & WP blatant "POV" pushing that's labeled "NPOV" (see information dominance corps)
Are these people's behavior understandable, yes of course. Are they Trustworthy? I think not. Are such actions acceptable to the wikipedia community? Is WP/WQ to be a tool of the U.S. empire - part of what many view as the empire of lies?  Such questions should be asked. Anutherconcerned (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted global stewards to review this section and the allegations here - the relevant ticket is Ticket#2023030210018545. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you DeirgeDel! I sent an email to a steward that's fluent in English and resided outside the U.S. about 10 hours ago. Hopefully there will be no duplication of effort there. Also, hopefully Antandrus will calm down, get well, and not have a stroke. ;-D Anutherconcerned (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anutherconcerned is editing in circumvention of a ban - the first was as User:Om777om. After that ban, he made an army of sockpuppets (e.g. User:Libraryclerk0191) to circumvent the ban. Clearly, he is contemptuous of 1) our editors, 2) our admins, 3) our policies, especially sockpuppetry and NPOV. (Read that anti-NPOV manifesto above with all the babble about "truth" and "corruption" and "censorship"! Read it!) Would an admin please appear and show this person the door? Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked this account as a sockpuppet, thanks for reporting. --Ferien (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: As you have been the subject the socks allegations it would have been so much better if an uninvolved admin or global sysop had stepped in and made the block, but given the failure over a reasonable amount of time it is probably good you did so albeit not best practice. While the sock, and perhaps even the master, is blocked, the master, who has a POV and a particular activist agenda, has succeeded in evading block and ensured his contributions are published; and has discovered there is no real consequence to doing so. While it is perfectly valid for the POV to be presented the way this has been done makes a complete mockery of the blocking system and in my view encourages editors with a single POV to block evade and published and W:WP:GRAVEDANCEs indef blocked broad based content contributors who do not use abusive socking. -- DeirgeDel tac 01:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well - I asked Ferien to help. No one else was. I think we just don't have enough admins here, at least admins who watch this board. And I do agree that having this person's contributions remain on WQ only encourages him to come back (he will, you can bet on it; people who Know The Truth don't just sigh and go do something else).
Last year some editors put in a lot of time to clean up this person's POV sputter, and it was partially successful - and a lot of work - we may need that again. Have a look at International law for a particularly noxious example of what "Libraryclerk0191" and his sockpuppets have gotten away with. Only the beginning and end of that article is in any way a collection of quotes about "international law" - the whole could be accurately retitled "Horrible Things Allegedly Done By the United States". Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeirgeDel, yes, at first I was thinking about not blocking because of what I was accused of, but it had already been quite a few days, no-one had responded to it and it was very clear it was the same editor. --Ferien (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus,@Ferien: I have painstakingly read the whole thread and it is my opinion that @Anutherconcerned should not have been blocked, since they were participating here making sense and in a civil manner, trying to explain their views. Not allowing them to participate in discussion is IMIO not only an act of censorship, but also ill-advised. Can anyone win a war by simply silencing the opposition?
And to those few Stewards who are watching this thread waiting for me to slip up, (yesterday there were 180 pairs of eyes trained on this board) I would like to state that I am biased on the side of Ukraine, but reserve the right to hear what others have to say, so please don't block me for what I am saying and who I am saying it to. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely and profoundly disagree - if we allow agenda-driven editing, and sockpuppet armies run by agenda-driven editors, we are no longer building a collection of neutral quotes, but a dumpster for propaganda. And oh look, a new sockpuppet has just appeared below. - No, just no. Neutral Point of View is the Wiki-universe's finest creation, and please do not let it erode. Allowing this person back would do no good, and just waste a lot of time. Antandrus (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @antandrus: In my post above I was not talking about w:wp:mainspace editing by users who have since been
blocked by @Ferien. I was talking about participation in this discussion. Blocking accounts because of what they say in discussion is counter-productive IMIO. And, talking of sock-armies, agenda-driven or not, I see they are not a new phenomenon at ENWQ. Throwing more&more vandal-fighting admins at them does not seem to solve the problem, so why not try to find out what the root of the problem is? Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Ottawahitech. Thank you for your contribution & courage. "In accordance to the principles of doublethink, it does not matter if the war is not real, or when it is, that victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. ...The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is... to keep... [totalitarian ruled] society intact." 1984 - The children are playing now, eventually they will learn. Barking dogs are just looking for attention. :-D 70.57.88.29 17:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus: I am not sure anyone here is interested in my reaction to your post above, a reaction that may be typical(?) of other ENWQ non-functionaries? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: -- personally, I am always interested in your opinion. Or reaction. Whether or not we agree. There are a whole bunch of issues here needing discussion, but I'm not sure this is the place to do it (does anyone read this board? maybe three or four people?) I think it's extremely important to shut down POV-pushing sock farms, because they compromise the integrity of the project, like black mold in the walls of your house. We have whole theme pages that scream an extremist POV, or used to, thanks to this one fanatical editor who "knows the truth" (mistaking "opinion" for "truth" is the common cold of intellectual vices - it's everywhere, and has been as long as there have been humans). But it is painful to ban such people when an honest majority of their work may be helpful. On enwiki we have "topic bans", e.g. an editor like this could be banned from current events and politics, broadly construed, and allowed to keep working on philosophers, religions, historical figures, and so forth. But (another issue needing discussion) WQ has some cultural differences from enwiki, including a kind of laissez-faire attitude to content addition, and I do not know if this is a genuine thing, or if just seems that way because of a shortage of volunteers. Anyway probably too much for this thread. My talk page has limitless space. :) Antandrus (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Atandrus - Couldn't help but notice this conversation & your contribution. It is good that you have a point of view and are not afraid to share it. Here recently, you have made numerous, negative allegations against "Anutherconcerned", "User:Om777om... . (e.g. User:Libraryclerk0191) and stated your views/allegations as if they were facts. If you know, how do you know? In other words, please explain what makes you think your allegations are true? Also, one here can't help but wonder, do you think following the most basic rules for wikipedia, are for others, but not for you? Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks???
Below, are verbatim copies of some of your allegations & POVs from this thread. How is it that you seem to "know" so much, or were you just courageously, blowing hot air?
Thanks & Best Wishes U.C.Besserman (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The System is blocking me. What a shocK! ;-) U.C.Besserman (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As many know, a competent/honest judge will not render a verdict until all evidence/testimony has been thoroughly examined. Thanks & Best wishes, 184.4.82.218 15:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR, sockpuppets gangs attacked, very very confusing case but fortunately caught by Antandrus and Ferien. Please be careful since socks are more and more clever but we do not have CU tools. Lemonaka (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic went on, On Mar 10, 184.4.85.88 (talk · contributions)'s edit on War crimes indicated an obvious block evasion. Since I'm not familiar with this troll or vandal, I'd like to leave it for other sysops who are more experienced. cc @Ferien, Antandrus: who stop previous socks. Lemonaka (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For clearly trolling and cross-wiki spamming their personal attacks, I've blocked this IP user for 1.07 d.--Lemonaka (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP information tools not working, or probably my own problem

Hello, as a project hit a lot by IP vandals, I found that a useful tools for analyzing IPs on English Wikipedia and metawiki is not working here. The tool called IP Info feature. Is this some preference setting issues of my own self or some bugs of the tool? Lemonaka (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't used that tool yet. Not sure what your issue could be. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I did now enable it and it does appear to work for me (and looks like a useful tool for sure!). ~ UDScott (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reboot it and now it works for me. Thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done--Lemonaka (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admins mailing list

Have we ever considered starting an admins' email list before? It could be quite helpful in some situations, for example if a user wants to request an unblock but needs to do it privately. --Ferien (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I see the difference between this and the already available feature to email any user (via the link on the left of the screen when on any user's page). Plus, I wouldn't want any such mailing list to provide my actual email address publicly. Unless you meant something different? Maybe you could elaborate. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UDScott, I agree and wouldn't want my email address listed publicly, so I'll give a bit more information on how a mailing list would operate if we chose to have one. The mailing list would be hosted on https://lists.wikimedia.org. You subscribe to the mailing list, and a mailing list admin (the admins of this list all likely being bureaucrats, so they can add new admins after RfAs) confirms via Special:EmailUser that that you wanted to subscribe and adds you to the list. Your email address is not recorded publicly. Like with Special:EmailUser, your email address is not given unless you choose to respond to an email. The only difference is that the email would automatically go to all administrators, and not just one like with Special:EmailUser. --Ferien (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. In this case, I would support this idea. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support starting an admins' email list. Some people may request unblock per this channel if something is related to privacy, plus sysops can discuss on this platform if necessary.
BTW, email lists will not expose your email to the public, unless you choose to reply or self-disclosed. Lemonaka (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be inactive for a while

Sorry, but some complex and terrible problems occurred on my laptop. I sent it for repair once, today it went dead again. Sorry for might being inactive for a while in the coming days since is really hard for editing and doing works on mobile device. Lemonaka (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Wikiquote:Sandbox was broken in an attempt to publish a page, it seems. A local sysop will need to move Margaret Brown back to Wikiquote:Sandbox, deleting the recreation, and then recreate the Margaret Brown page with the content the editor used. I'm happy to handle this if the local sysops would prefer me to do it. Operator873 (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Saroj Uprety (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection for WALL-E

WALL-E should be protected due to vandalism after previous protection expired. Leonidlednev (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonidlednev Y Done Lemonaka (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A nonsenseical bug

I am trying to create an article for Fischer random chess, but I get this message when I try to submit the article: “This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: breasts, beauty, and life”. I do not think an administrator would see adding articles, in general, as harmful, or breaking an abuse rule, at least automatically. -- —This unsigned comment is by 24.49.51.83 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 31 March 2023‎.

24.49.51.83: I was going to treat you as a complete newbie and direct you to Help:Contents but as you've found the abuse rule your likely to be able to work round it. That said I've have to move and sign your contribution here. The start point would be to indicate the verified source as I assume the phrase is part of a quote and can be sourced from somewhere. Thankyou -- (not an admin) DeirgeDel tac 03:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to edit an article about the great commandment and am getting this message "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: GRP". what does this mean? —This unsigned comment is by ER-0788 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 April 2023‎.

@ER-0788 I've checked your contributions, and it looks like a false positive. cc@BD2412, you may need to confirm this user manually to help them bypass the AF. Lemonaka (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Will look into it this afternoon, as I am just leaving for an event. In the interim, the editor can be self confirmed by constructive editing over a period of days. There is no deadline. BD2412 T 13:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still dubious about manually confirming an editor whose sole edit is to this noticeboard so they can make a flagged edit. What was the content sought to be added? BD2412 T 02:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While,it's a bit of complex edits after checking abuse logs. Lemonaka (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I get the gist without hitting the flagged words? BD2412 T 04:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "to summarize all of the laws, rules, and commandments given in the Bible." to the first paragraph, and do some copyedits for formatting. Lemonaka (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry investigation request

Per editing patterns on Tommy Jonathan Sinaga, it left me a very strong impression that

are sockpuppets of each other, since they both had strong interest in a low notability article.

Also adding

They directly reverted back the content to the version of Inglebert Konstantino (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log).

Do we need a checkuser request on meta or deal with it locally? Lemonaka (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an outside chance of a link to 49.237.37.89 and it would need a global checkuser. Some things here are getting in realms of a W:en:WP:DUCK test pass. -- DeirgeDel tac 13:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why they are duck-able enough, thus why I believe a CU for these accounts is needed. Lemonaka (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then call for a checkuser. The longer its left the colder some stuff likely gets. In general another strategy for a case like this where's there's been VfD interference and the 7 days aren't up is to review the VfD promptly and if there's been any more interference or votes by concerned parties, and its not unreasonable for any major contributor to vote, they call the checkuser at that time. I've recused from the associate VfD so I won't be coming back at it but I do urge that VfD is closed one way or the other as soon as possible, even if no-consensus, so the issue does not drag on and on and on and on and on and on. Unfortunately no other admin has responded here, at least on wiki. Best wishes. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VFD queue again!

I am frustrated and disappointed at the lack of progress in addressing the list of VFD nominations. The longer it is and the longer it is left the harder it is to process what it what. Over 2023 I've pressed fairly effectively to get Wikiquote articles associated with wikidata items; and got that list of unconnected lists to under 40, perhaps 35 if I remember. I stood back from doing that about 3 weeks ago: There were a number of reasons for this: including the hope volunteer Mike Peel would get his bot developed and installed amongst his RL, and also to see what would happen if I stood back. The had gone up to 60. I've worked through it and got it down to about 40. Some easy to resolve, some more difficult. But the real frustration was the clutter on the queue left by VFD's just sitting there for weeks and months and they form over two thirds of that list. And I went through it particularly looking for redirects that had become articles which can appear at any point on that list. If VFD's had been resolved that would have avoided me having to re-check articles again and again; find VFD removal vandalism on the way. Really frustrating. Mike, sorry to disturb you but do you have an update on your bot - I've you got to delay it massively due to other RL. stuff that's OK as I certainly ought to understand RL is priority 1 - so even if you have to abandon its that's ok. Just really an update on or best guess revised ETA. Thanks - DeirgeDel tac 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the queue has grown ever so long once again. Its sheer size I am sure is a bit intimidating for many to even try to begin whittling it down. I've done some few things to help a bit: I archived all of the closed discussions and placed some more votes. I definitely do not have the time at the moment to go through each of the ones whose discussion periods have expired (especially the ones where there seems to be a lack of consensus). Will try to return to it when I am able... ~ UDScott (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say thank you to those admins who have help reduced the backlog a little on the various deletion queues. I also appreciate all admins have are volunteers and have real lives and cannot always spend effort here. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki request

Hello Wikiquote admins. The English Wikipedia has recently closed an Articles for Deletion discussion with consensus that the content should be transwiki'd to WikiQuote. I'm unsure of the local process for how to do this; attribution needs to be maintained for the English Wikipedia contributors who formatted and translated the proverbs, but there already exists a Serbian proverbs page. Something along the lines of a transwiki to Proverbs from Serbia, combined with a subsequent merge of the content with attribution and a redirect, would allow for the content to be merged into the Serbian proverbs article in a license-compliant manner. Red-tailed hawk (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@Red-tailed hawk, Aoidh:: My alt Bigdelboy has basic transwiki experience on Wikibooks. However its rusty, the project was not a success, @Barkeep49: ended up being falsely attributed with content for months on end despite there protests. However I am blocked on the English Wikipedia and being mentally stressed by it as I've a a UTRS appeal open for 6 weeks. However the process there may be different from the process here. Some admins may have experience. Help:Transwiki as Serbian proverbs exists here this will be a merge per Help:Transwiki. [2] is also relevant. That said quotes are not original content so some might feel attribution is not as necessary albeit some dudes have put in effort sourcing the quotes. Best if I give this at least 48 hours for an admin to respond here. -- DeirgeDel tac 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk:: As far as I can gather this Wiki is set up for Transwiki's but per Wikiquote:Transwiki log I don't think this has been done in a long while. I believe Special:Import can be used for the import which should be to the Transwiki namespace. I don't have the required importer privilege to do it and would have to request it although any administrator could do the import. Hope that helps a little. -- (DeirgeDel) Bigdelboy tac 21:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
@Red-tailed hawk: Y Done Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Red-tailed hawk (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note this transwiki was directly onto the mainspace article rather than a stage on the Transwiki namespace. That "solves" the Transwiki request but has some disadvantages (as well as some advantages) compared to a stage to transwiki and a merge which also likely requires the page to be archived e.g. as an archive of the talk page, albeit that is a little tricky and controversial. I'll possibly make some comments on Talk:Serbian proverbs at some point which has relevance to this use case. -- DeirgeDel tac 19:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Importer privilege request for bigdelboy

Requesting importer privilege for my alternate account bigdelboy. As per AWB I prefer additional privileges off of my main account and sometimes its possible the importer privilege is used for bulk page operations, though bulk operations are more likely on Wikibooks rather than here. Obviously not as necessary if admins perform above transwiki request. Thankyou -- DeirgeDel tac 22:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC) & -- Bigdelboy tac 22:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This permission cannot be added locally by an administrator. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated vandalism from off-wiki forum

There appears to be an off-wiki effort at this forum which is seeking to coordinate vandalism of Graham Linehan. I am admittedly a bit unfamiliar with Wikiquote policies on this sort of thing, but I would request that an admin take a look to see if temporary semi-protection is warranted. Red-tailed hawk (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the page and will keep an eye on it after the protection expires to see if stronger action is needed. Thanks for the heads up. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VfD articles eligible for closure by date as of 25 April 2023

Really great thanks to admins who have tackled closures and maintenance on the VfD queue. That has really helped me keep the articles without sitelinks list at times down to under 20. But I'd really like the VfD list vigorously pruned where reasonably possible especially where the outcome is clear. I'd encourage no consensus keep in the cases where the !vote is mixed and votes do not appear to match policy. I am of the opinion VFD's should never be left open for over a month, the fact one is over a year old, more than 1% of my whole life, is really not acceptable. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated 1 May 2023 marking those resolved. Thankyou for all admins working the deleteion queues. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC) & -- DeirgeDel tac 06:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated 3 May 2023 22:00 UTC. Again thanks to those working on this and all the deletion queues. I'm impressed the articles without sitelinks list is actually as low as 7 entries (and anything on it is on a deletion process). That is about as low as it will practically get. As can be seen by the results below not everything at VFD gets deleted; and not everything goes the way I myself voted, and that is healthy. In general though and comparing with by experience at the English Wikipedia WP:AFD equivalent discussion closures have in general been very well judged so a big well done to the closures. Its also healthy admins have sometimes for the more complex cases chosen to vote and comment rather than close. That also is very healthy. I think pretty well most/all of the easier closes have been finished and what remains is to focus on the more complex cases. As cases are left on the WQ:VFD there will be a lag before closed cases are archived and the healthy effect seen on that list. Thankyou again. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
April 2022 (Over one year ago)
August 2022
December 2022
January 2023
February 2023
March 2023 (to 20 March 2023)

DeirgeDel tac 22:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/QLP page

Can an administrator sort out a problem at Leil where a speedy delete tag has been removed on a WQ:QLP article with no references. Please do something. Either action as a valid Speedy delete or decide not to. The problem is there is not verifiable or references information in the article which is in QLP scope which means per policy all the content needs to be blanked and doing that and sending to VFD seems crazy. Note I have raised this at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress#New report 2023-05-3, 23:32. The key point is this should not be left sitting there wasting everyone's time but decisions need to be taken rapidly. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 14:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done - I've deleted the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 14:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mailing list

Several days ago, @Ferien said he wanted to build up a mailing list for sysop on this project. Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/039#Admins mailing list
However, this seemed to be stuck, is there any progression? Lemonaka (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka, I've just opened a phab task: phab:T336293. Another admin will probably need to offer to be the "secondary email address", although it's worth noting this email address is publicly visible on phab. There has only been one comment from a bureaucrat so far, and they don't want their email visible onwiki, so I've volunteered myself to be the primary one. --Ferien (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien In case you'd appreciate that possibility, the email address can be provided in a more secretive way. Phabricator has a NDA paste form, where you can put data that will be available only to WMF staff and few volunters with a NDA signed. Once a NDA paste is created, you can link it freely from the task itself, and it will be visible only to authorized Phabricator users. Hope this helps! Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Urbanec, yes, thank you, I'd certainly prefer to give it that way! However, when I went onto the link you gave me, I got the message "Access Denied: Restricted Edit Configuration" "You do not have permission to view this object." --Ferien (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Urbanec Thank you, but I got the same notice as Ferien, it showed me with
You do not have permission to view this object.
Users with the "Can View" capability:
This object has a custom policy controlling who can take this action. Lemonaka (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka Hi, Just send me an email via Special:EmailUser/Ladsgroup functionality (if that's the email address you want to provide) or in the email mention which address you prefer. Ladsgroup (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ladsgroup Done Lemonaka (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I marked both of your accounts as trusted, so the notice should disappear now. But, it seems it's resolved in a different way now! Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien I've sent an email to all sysops to invite them to join this mailing lists. Best regards. Lemonaka (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lemonaka! And to all admins who may be reading, who haven't registered yet.. please make sure to either email me or just respond to email you were sent by Lemonaka so me or Lemonaka know it's definitely your email address that's being added and not anyone else's. --Ferien (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let people know I have been following this here and on Phab so your're right to be cautious! -- DeirgeDel tac 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting sockpuppet checks

How is this handled here. There is an enWQ essay Wikiquote:Sock puppetry#Handling suspected sock puppets that directs one to raise a report at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations which due to my indef block there is impossible for me and quite frankly I would assume might be out-of-scope anyway. My person opinion is there is stuff that can be handled here; there is other stuff that might need cross-wiki checks. My immediate use case is one of the former. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 14:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeirgeDel, I don't know why enwiki is mentioned there. This wiki used to have checkusers but now we don't, so requests should be made on m:SRCU. --Ferien (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien: Thanks for that reply, I've updated that document accordingly. What about things that don't particularly need a checkuser and could be handled by a W:WP:DUCK test especially if its a chance of a minor offence? -- DeirgeDel tac 16:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeirgeDel, then they could just be reported to this noticeboard.--Ferien (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sock check for User:Jasonrparker03

Was concerned as User:Jasonrparker03 had created article (Down as PROD by myself) for same author as one created by User:Matdcan (whch is at VfD). Has ignored request for confirming no COI on talk page at 09:22, 11 May 2023 but has continued to edit page at 11:05 Special:Diff/3290510. Not a clean start due to author connection. -- DeirgeDel tac 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give some diffs that they are editing in the similar behaviour? Otherwise I cannot file and SRCU and it is likely to be refused by stewards. Lemonaka (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka: Possibly need to be given more W:en:ROPE. In general the quicker deletion processes are dealt with less issues there are. For example I've PRODed Jasonrparker03's rather than VfD'ing it due to delay's in VfD's getting through the system. It will possibly (now probably) be subject to a dePROD which means it will get the honor of a VfD exposure anyway, sigh. -- DeirgeDel tac 10:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New LibraryClerk sock(s)

There seem to be several IPs starting with 75.57 showing up in some of LibraryClerk's favorite articles, e.g. Corruption, to add quotes from their favorite sources (Benjamin Creme, various mystics). Here is one, very active today:https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.57.89.50. Some admin please block? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Y Done, but only for sockpuppetry behaviour, not anything about POV-pushing. Lemonaka (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some spam weblinks from the above marked as BTW (by the way) and leave admins to determine how to handle the rest of it which includes allegations and attacks. As Lemonaka has been targeted it is best an admin other than them responds if possible. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeirgeDel Thanks for your help. I've blocked this sockpuppet and left the following explanations. Lemonaka (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Lemonaka, sorry for letting you wait so long. Definitely, sockpuppetry is an unacceptable behaviour, especially for evading blocks or bans. I've claimed that my blocks and reverts are not based on POV-pushing, but a banned user should not contribute here. This applied to GRP, Risto hot sir and you.
As a new sysop, I found you were trolling, canvassing and making false accusation on meta-wiki against this whole project, using lots of sockpuppets. This is clearly out of the line. If you don't believe I have the competence to become a sysop, you can file an RFDA anytime after your blocks and bans are unbanned by other sysops or the whole community, but I believe no one is going to do so.
TLDR, using sockpuppets is a veto for becoming good a contributor. No matter how much you contributed before, thus using sockpuppets is about losing trust from community. For more information, you can check m:Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_PlanespotterA320_(2). Using more socks will lead you to global locks or finally global banned by whole wikimedia community. Lemonaka (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I don't think I've ever been called a 'cancerous tumor' before. Will have to add to my collection. It's more creative than the usual "Nazi" and "Communist" labels. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of this. Ferien, Lemonaka, or any other admin watching, would you please shut this person down? They simply cannot be more blatant about their enmity towards WQ policy, whether it be neutral point of view, assuming good faith, or personal attacks, block evasion, or sockpuppeting (he's got sixteen socks not counting the IPs). Arguing with someone who "Knows the Truth" is a waste of time. Antandrus (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are the ranges:
Thank you - Antandrus (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus@Ferien I've blocked 184.4.80.112 for a month since they are trolling everywhere, and confession as a sockpuppet. I didn't block other IPs in these range since they are not active for nearly a month. If you want to block them, just do it. Lemonaka (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just collapsed the rants above. Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is back again, as Special:Contributions/70.57.95.98. Ferien, Lemonaka, or any other admin watching, can we please shut down these ranges, and two individual (possibly static) IPs? These are dynamic IPs and he just gets another IP if you block them individually. People like this do not stop. He is literally the only active editor at these ranges since September 2010 so you don't have to worry about collateral damage.
Thank you - Antandrus (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Antandrus I've blocked 70.57.95.98, range block was enacted by Ferien. I've protected this page for excessive sockpuppetry. Lemonaka (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the range as well. Apologies that I'm not able to deal with these very quickly, I'm currently busy with exams for the next month or so, then hopefully I'll return to regular activity. --Ferien (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing deletion discussions

Can admins please address deletion processes promptly if they are able. At the same time thankyou for bringing out of control lists towards a manageable number. You've done really well in helping me get and keep my favorite metric under double figures! Thankyou again, there's both some easy one's and some really tough one's out there. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MP Bot

@@Mike Peel: About two to three months ago there was talk of you providing an MP Bot, per Wikiquote:Village pump archive 62#Need consensus from members of this community for connecting pages to wikidata there was community consensus for this. I've got a reasonable idea you are probably fairly busy, possibly busier than you anticipated, and understandably this is not a priority and perhaps best passed to someone else. In the interim I've resumed to manually handling the, unconnected pages in mainspace and that number is out the moment down to four. I've had to cajole the admins a little to help get the numbers down from 50 to 10 to the current 4: of which one is 4 months, two probably about a month, and one recent. I can't thank the admins enough for thier help in achieving that metric. However I do have done that at some indirect impacts to myself. I can probably keep managing this for as long as I am able especially if the majority or new articles have associated English Wikipedia articles and that deletion queues are handled promptly and Io don't get overwhelmed. In summary if you can get your bot operating it might and I repeat might get me out of the loop which from my point of view would be a very good thing. But quite frankly I likely thing you are (or ought to be!) too busy in which case pragmatically I'll continue business as usually, but in this case I'd really like deletion list's handled promptly with expected service levels and I'd not like to see any VfD left open for more than a month. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 12:38, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to close AfD deletion discussion after over 4 months

Unfortunately I see the failure to address and close the deletion discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Aart Juriaanse after over 4 months as a collective administration failure on this Wiki. I can appreciate this one is difficult but if local sysops cannot address this situation then I intend to raise it with global stewards after a further 2 weeks, that is 336 hours. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested to me the wording here is a little strong and and in many ways I apologise if that is the case. I think you'll often find I have thanked sysop/admins here many times for the work that they do. It's not that I agree with every admin all of the time, though I hope I agree with community consensus. I really see this as a case is being struggling to be dealt with and the reason for going to the sysops/stewards to ask for assistance. While some see that as a threat my intention is to pre-announce an action I genuinely intend to make so it suddenly doesn't come out of the blue. On the English Wikipedia there are many admins who never touch any AfD close with a bargepole but use their talents elsewhere. However there are a small set of others who can do difficult AfD closures really well with great justifications AfD closures. They are practiced at this and able to put reasoned arguments at DRV as well if necessary. Here the admins (thankfully) get very little practice at the difficult AfD closes like this case. Now a local spiritual advisor is much into quotes and their relevance. For those who know I am about sitelinking might realise, that at the risk of blasphemy, I have, how shall I say, adapted Matthew 18:18-20 "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon English Wikiquote, shall be bound also in Wikidata; and whatsoever you shall loose upon English Wikiquote, shall be loosed also in Wikidata." -- DeirgeDel tac 11:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been pointed out to me that that this was not a BLP and I unreserved apologise if I got that wrong. The BLP in the section header was actually redundant at it was the four months remaining open that was my concern. If no own objects I would like someone removes it though I fully admit my mistake ... in fact it should have been QLP. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 12:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeirgeDel: Today I (HOC) got email from the stewards, apologizing for their delay in responding to a request for help I sent long ago, dealing with continued edits from new accounts of banned sockmaster "LibraryClerk." The date on the email I sent them was 04/29/2022. So the stewards are not a quick response team. I wonder if our current admins could solicit en-wiki admins to get cross-certified here, to help them deal with AfDs etc.? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give the sysops here more chance to manage themselves. They've actually managed to get a VfD list of approaching a hundred perhap 2/3 months ago down to 17. Possibly 1/3 of that list is obvious closes; there quite a few which could be pragmatically closed non-consensus. If there's been a W:WP:HEY improvement then waiting for the other votes to change may be just too long, simply non consensus close it. There's maybe 3 or 4 which are trickier but clearing the others first would help focus on these. Thats a quick tired answer. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Gadget-HighlightAdmins.js is out of date

While testing on Highlight admins, I found this gadget is out of date. user:Miszatomic is not a sysop anymore, while user:Saroj Uprety and I were both elected as new sysops. I'd like to edit this page, but it seemed you need an IA permission to change it. Lemonaka (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AGadget-HighlightAdmins.js&diff=3296389&oldid=3181549 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Test on mailing list

I have sent an email to mailing list, did anyone receive that mail? Lemonaka (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded via my inbox and I see it online now as well at https://lists.wikimedia.org/, so seems to be in order. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So strange that I got two same emails on my mailbox, while only one showed on https://lists.wikimedia.org/ Lemonaka (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You got my response in your inbox twice? I confirmed that it only sent once. Odd. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, after checking again. Everything seemed to be correct, one is from you directly, another is from mailing list. Lemonaka (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiight, I responded to you and the list. I'll try to remember that when posting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since no one replied on the mailing list, I will bring it here. Some IPs have been indeffed by different sysops, but commonly IPs should not be blocked indefinitely. For the blocking list, please read block list. Lemonaka (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And if that's something we want to do, it should probably be at the WMF level (i.e. a steward action). On en.wp, for proxies, they are blocked for a period of several months or a couple of years, but not indefinitely. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not received any emails, at least since the first tests that were run when setting it up. Nothing in the spam folder either. When did you send it? ~ UDScott (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to the question raised - I would not be against removing the indef blocks for those that I placed (I don't believe I have placed one like that in nearly 5 years). ~ UDScott (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott: Can you see the archive at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikiquote-en-admins@lists.wikimedia.org/? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get an error that the mailing list is private. I do recall seeing test messages in my email when the topic of a mailing list was first discussed, but nothing since then. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott Please log in on https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikiquote-en-admins.lists.wikimedia.org/ , send an email to me from wiki mailing system. Then I will grant you permission. Lemonaka (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can email @Ferien since I'm currently working in the hospital, I may not reply in time. Lemonaka (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf and @UDScott I've unblocked your blocks. For other sysops, now pinging @Ferien @Ningauble @BD2412 @GreenMeansGo and @Miszatomic Lemonaka (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Received. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having been pinged, I confirm receipt of the mentioned email. I do not wish to enroll in a private mailing list. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 and @Ningauble What about your indefinte blocks on IPs, especially 103.57.87.111 and 86.179.83.41? Do you want to unblock them per above discussion? Lemonaka (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I have set the block on mine to expire relatively shortly. As to the remaining blocks, I would suggest shortening them all accordingly. BD2412 T 03:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I've unblocked Miszatomic's block, they are inactive for nearly three years and will not reply to this. Lemonaka (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(nonadmin): Per [3] and [4] & Special:ListAdmins I'm concerned if Miszatomic was on the mailing list. Otherwise I wondering what "@BD2412 I've unblocked Miszatomic's block, they are inactive for nearly three years and will not reply to this" has specifically to do with the thread "Test on mailing list."? If this is an action as a result of discussions on that mailing list possibly needs its own (sub)section. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 07:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeirgeDel they are out of contact, we cannot contact them this year, even stewards leave a removal notice. They are certainly not on the mailing list. So maybe I need to split this thread into two ones, but I was so sleepy now. This will be done several hours later. Lemonaka (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Returning LTA

User:Lansonwong brinacha (contribs) is a sock of the cross-wiki LTA w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyberpunk2077JohnnySilverhand. Please block the account and delete and salt the page they have created. Thanks! JavaHurricane 10:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Saroj Uprety (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-sock and block-evading measures

Administrators may wish to have discussion about anti-sock and block-evading measures. While here indicates two checkusers I'd recommend three for redundancy and also ideally that one has checkuser on a sister project. I can uderstand some existing crats/admins might not be willing to take it on; that sustained contributions over years might be warranted for this privilege; and no skeltons across the WMF wikis. Probably best admins have a chat on their emails to determine candidates if going this route. Other measures might include introduction of draftspace and widespread use of pending changes protection. -- DeirgeDel tac 10:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If its relevant in terms of active users : [5] is currently showing 20 different active users created over 80 articles in the last two weeks. -- DeirgeDel tac 10:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per m:CheckUser_policy, After gaining consensus (at least 70%–80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in the local community, and with at least 25–30 editors' approval, the successful candidate should request access at Steward. Lemonaka (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka: Thankyou for that clarification. While I suspect there are probably about 25 (persistent) registered editors active each month I suspect perhaps only about 10 would vote. I recall a case on :simple (or was it even commons?) recently where it was hard pressed for the 25 to be achieved. The recent RFA on enWP have about 230 votes, the range for completed RFAs on enWP in 2022 was between circa 176 to 468; the latter being a case that more divided that community. On that basis it would probably need an appeal across the sister projects, enWP; Simple, and enWikitionary to attract the required !vote; and perhaps might need support from those willing to support small Wikis. Such a notification would need to be very carefully worded and broad and not a targeted canvas. If ye have the candidates I might have some thoughts on the required campaign ... I created the VICS stub article on enWP didn't I ? (which someone will now probably PROD and which I seem to have forgotten to add to the DAB ... how did I miss that!) -- DeirgeDel tac 19:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeirgeDel, yup that was this. If we were to go through with RfCUs then we would not be allowed to go onto another projects like enwiki, simple etc to attract votes. Only meta might be acceptable due it being the centre of all wikis but I don't believe that would be allowed either. The idea the 25 requirement is to show that if the community can't get 25 people together who are all active on the wiki, then they don't have a need for CUs/OS'es and can use stewards. --Ferien (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeirgeDel Sadly I found CU reintroduction seemed to be impossible. Checking previous dispution about CU information on this project, yuck, terrible. Lemonaka (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree pragmatically while not impossible trying to it would likely involve a poor cost/risk/benefit outcoming. The cost/risk/benefit of adopting draftspace for eg non "extended autoconfirmed" is less clear - there are advantages and drawbacks. Use of "pending changes" could be useful but it requires people to be aware on how to use it and not to keep changes in the pending state for an extended period. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, are there more than 25 active editors on this project now? Seemed not, then let's just skip this topic. Lemonaka (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka:: That comment seemed likely your pretty unhappy with the Checkuser situation. And if you'd not posted this three would be archived far later than it would if you'd not posted at all. I also indicated the possible introduction of draftspace for new articles which was not considered; albeit its unwise for me to pursue that when I'm questioning my commitment to this Wiki and I'm preferring to keep my loose ends to a minimum. -- DeirgeDel tac 09:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we didn't even have any policies related to Checkuser since the last Checkuser quit this project. For example, what kind of cases should be filed as a Checkuser request to stewards? SPI cases should be logged or filed on which places? After a rough review, I found Checkuser information about previous socks are scattered everywhere on this project, even with CU before. I will do some search further when time permitted, but it will be a long and hard work. Lemonaka (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request page protection for Avatar: The Last Airbender

Several IP users have repeatedly vandalized all 3 Avatar: The Last Airbender pages. I suspect they may be sockpuppets. Requesting page protection for:

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)
Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2)
Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

Spiritoftheeast1993 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiritoftheeast1993 IP ranges blocked Lemonaka (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pagemover right for this wiki.

I would like sysops to consider whether certain users should be able to move pages without leaving a redirect. While administrators have this privilege it would be useful if certain users could be granted it also if they regular review/cleanup new pages and identify a page move. While a page can be moved this leaves a (sometimes unhelpful) redirect and that requires a speedy. I have had a revelant discussion with @MathXplore: where I suggested my current practice of simply placing the English Wikipedia article name in the 2nd parameter of a {{Wikipedia}} was usually effective and avoided the need for a non-admin rename (move) leaving a redirect which is often best speedy deleted. Events over the past couple of days have caused my to rethink that: We have one or more prolific creators of articles with incorrect capitalisation and we and in the middle of a World Africa Day (month) campaign that encourages people from Africa to write Wikiquote articles. In the light of this I'm going to switch to moving articles leaving a redirect and then requesting a speedy on the redirect (which then shows up as an article on my favorite page monitor until deleted; which is a distraction in getting new articles sitelinked. I am really pushed for time at present so I apologise if this post is a little rough. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 09:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved several (10?) articles to the correct spelling/capitialisation and I've speedied the re-directs. That makes the appear on the unconnected pages list which is an annoying distraction. I may be implementing a personal policy that if anything I've speedied inside 24 hours may be de-speedied and may or may not be placed into another process. By the way I totally accept the right of any sysop to refuse a speedy and I feel bad if they need to do that - a sysop who taught me a lot about the AfD process when I was new to it was ultimately scuppered and de-sysoped for not checking inappropriate speedies and on the enWP and was lost to the project. I didn't know he was at Arbcom and would have liked to have fought his case. Anyway he was lost. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie problem articles during Africa campaign to mid-June

I decided to PROD some cases rather than speedy them to help newbies understand problems. It PRODs are stupidly contested I'll switch back to speedy's where appropriate. I'm also going to try to reach out to the African campaign organisers. @Anthere: for info. -- DeirgeDel tac 09:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it might be Kafui Anthere (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indef IP block

Following previous topic. There are still some IPs being indeffed on block list, they are blocked by user:Ferien, user:Ningauble and user:GreenMeansGo. --Lemonaka (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonaka, thanks for letting me know. I was a little surprised to see I had blocked an IP indef as there have been a few times where I am the one searching for and informing admins of indefinite IP blocks, but I guess everyone makes mistakes! --Ferien (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everyone makes mistakes. This is just a little headup. Lemonaka (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo, Greetings. There's only one indefinite Ip block left on this list put by you. Do you want to unblock them? Lemonaka (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done GMGtalk 10:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request against Awedmote

Awedmote (talk · contributions)'s edit on NATO has left me a strong impression that they are a block evasion as Libraryclerk0191 (talk · contributions), but I'm not quite sure about that. Does anyone support or want to endorse this case on SRCU? Lemonaka (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support your judgement to make the request. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Koavf. Also pinging @Antandrus since they are quite familiar with this LTA. Lemonaka (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the many jumping IPs that Libraryclerk0191 (talk · contributions) has been using to edit here in recent months, it's not clear what a negative Checkuser would prove, but I also recommend asking for one. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Libraryclerk0191's recent IPs are numerous but they all geolocate to various cities in Missouri (and one to Dallas if I remember correctly). See my sandbox for a list. I looked at Awedmote's contribs a week or so ago with the same thought but didn't think the fingerprints were quite clear enough to call it out (am unwilling to be more detailed publicly for w:WP:BEANS reasons). The account's interests are a match though. Antandrus (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requested on m:Steward requests/Checkuser#Awedmote@en.wikiquote Lemonaka (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange As you expected, negative. Lemonaka (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/039&oldid=3326583"