Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/006

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Requested edit to MediaWiki:Common.js[edit]

  mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
    "imageFile": "",
    "speedTip": "Insert a link to Wikipedia",
    "tagOpen": "[[w:",
    "tagClose": "]]",
    "sampleText": "Insert Wikipedia pagename"};


  mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
    "imageFile": "",
    "speedTip": "Insert a link to Wikipedia",
    "tagOpen": "[[w:",
    "tagClose": "|]]",
    "sampleText": "Insert Wikipedia pagename"};

This causes it to add a pipe, so, when the save button is pressed, it'll hide the "w:" and any disambiguators. Sceptre 00:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cbrown1023 talk 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd thought about that change, but didn't make it because while it does do what you say, Sceptre, it also will hide anything with punctuation, not just dab parentheses. For instance, [[w:To Sir, with Love|]] becomes simply "To Sir". (Requiring the repetition avoids the problem with disappearing desired text.) But it's probably a reasonable trade-off, especially given that using the non-piped version of the button would more often require fixing for proper display. Either problem can be fixed if missed by the original editor, anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Now the comma trick, I didn't know. Would've saved me a hell of a job on en:wiki last night. Sceptre 18:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Checkuser rights[edit]

originally posted a part of Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/005#Report two block

My knowledge of this project is not great. However, based on my experience on Wikibooks, I feel it would be wise if two of your sysops were to seek CU rights (there have to be two on a project for cross checking). That way you decide on checking and can deal with it more quickly than an appeal to Meta. Blocking underlying IPs on books reduced the heavy page move vandalism substantially. Just my thoughts --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Remember that these user's needn't be sysops, but it certainly aids in the process and we already trust our sysops greatly. However, remember that said sysops need to be over 18 and willing to identify themselves to the Foundation. We also need to have a vote and these users need over 25 supports with at lest 70% support. More information can be found at Meta:CheckUser policy.
I definitely agree that we need these but cannot help at all myself. That stated, I think User:Jeffq, User:Kalki, and User:Aphaia would make wonderful CUs (I certainly trust them and I know for a fact that two of them are over 18 and I believe the other one is as well).
If we were going to do this (as I believe we should), the nominations should be held on the Wikiquote:Village pump in order to get as much view and opinions as possible. Cbrown1023 talk 12:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your information (and also suggestion, I'm honored to list along those respectful my fellow editors). I am not sure if our community are populated enough have CUs (note: we must choose at least two people, otherwise no local CU). I would point out the same qualification (18+, identity notification) should be applied for OTRS volunteers (cf. Wikiquote:Contact us) for which we also need people who are willing to help ;-) As for nomination place, while VP would be a good place to have all editors attention, I think we could gather those nominations & votes for WQ:RFA. --Aphaia 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, it would take place there but be linked from an announcement on WP:VP and might also be put in the Sitenotice. Cbrown1023 talk 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The good news is that there is no time limit to the vote (unless you want one!) - the bad news is that some early Wikibooks votes went on for 6 months - you have been warned.
As to candidates - I do not know many of you here well (& you don't know me) - my personal view would be to see one of your 'crats and for the other candidate to be an admin, that seems to share the balance a little (however there is at least a wiki where they have agreed that 'crats have CU rights too). It would be good if there were just two candidates as that might be easier to get votes behind just two rather than split them. To me they must be active - it is a tool that needs using fairly quickly. Take a vandal account - any sysop block will autoblock the IP for 24 hours but it would be good if CU were done in that time. --Herby talk thyme 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Herby on the speed. The data is not stored for too long and that is what we are basing it on... Cbrown1023 talk 18:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate Cbrown1023's support of me as a potential CUer. I claim to be 18+ and expect to confirm my identity and age for OTRS, so doing so for CU is no problem. Being a cautious type, I feel I will need to review my networking knowledge in the context of the CU process before I can volunteer, but pending that, I would be willing to do this work. I also support Kalki and Aphaia (both bureaucrats) in this role, and wouldn't mind if they were the only two CUers here, either. (I'm also open to considering others who demonstrate, in addition to their trustworthiness, the requisite insanity by volunteering to add to their administrative work.)
However, I'm not sure our community is active enough to get 25 people to vote. We've never had more than 12 users making 100+ edits in any given month. It's a bit of a problem, because we're in the odd position of being one of the most visible Wikimedia projects (i.e., vandalism targets), but having most of our substantial edits done by large numbers of infrequent, anonymous editors, plus a handful of very prolific registered users. That makes it simultaneously important to have CUs done (by someone, even if not Wikiquotians) while not having the normally expected quantity and diversity of active registered users of such a visible project. But if the voting period can run many months, I suppose the likely set of vandal attacks in that time will serve as a goad for our less frequent editors to consider advantages of enabling swifter and more thorough anti-vandal work.
On the plus side, I'm not sure the number of candidates would be an issue. If I understand the process correctly (especially after examining Wikibooks' early "WB:RFA#Requests for CheckUser rights"), each candidate is voted on separately, so votes would not be "split". Each editor could register a distinct opinion for each candidate, causing each candidate to muster support based on the trust they themselves have gained from the community. In this context, it might even be better to field as many as would be willing, for the broadest chance to get two supported candidates as quickly as possible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - to clarify - each candidate is voted on separately however sometimes the members of the community have reservations about supporting too many users with these rights - that is what I meant by "splitting" the vote.
Certainly a rising tide of vandalism can be "used" to encourage people to vote on this! It is a tool to be used - the last req on Meta has led (eventually) to a six month IP block here which will help a little bit these folk will pop up again. Your community here is not dissimilar to Wikibooks - many folk working in there own areas with few looking at the project as a whole but we do have & use CU there & I sincerely hope you will find people willing & able to use it here. It really does benefit the whole community (for the benefit of anyone unaware the CU log is common to all wikis, so enquiries on another wiki can be seen and that can confirm cross wiki issues - the block here reveal the same IP as my check on Books for example). If I can clarify anything let me know - regards --Herby talk thyme 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Herby that I think it is beneficial to have two local CUs who are active enough on the project that at least one could respond quickly... Getting 25 users to vote in favour can be a bit of a hurdle... I am not very active here myself so I don't know what your voting policy is, but if I were eligible to vote I would be happy to support any user that I already knew was trustworthy (Checkuser is a weighty responsibility as it involves privacy matters normally kept secret) based on their activity and interaction with me on a different project. In particular I do think Aphaia and CBrown1023 would make good candidates, but that is not meant to exclude anyone else. Should a vote get started I invite candidates to let me know about it so I can participate. ++Lar: t/c 20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, we'd consider it sooner or later, I suppose. In this occasion, I would encourage each of sysop team to consider helping info-wq queue on OTRS too, which is under same requirement to be involved: if you are already over 18 and okay to have WMF know your identity. Currently among us, only I seem to serve this contact team among E nglish Wikiquote community, and we therefore need hands definitely. --Aphaia 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another block recommendaion[edit]

Based on vandalism over a number of Wikis and uploading of inappropriate material on Commons User: has been blocked for a minimum of 3 months on 4 other Wikis today. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Cbrown1023 talk 19:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsure of policy here[edit]

You have a new user User:Vedantdotcom. On it's own unremarkable maybe but this is the fourth Wiki that the same user put the same thing on the page at about the same time. Maybe spam, maybe not - regards --Herby talk thyme 17:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this name violates our wikiquote:username policy. I'm going to block it due to that. If anyone have a different opinion, please let me know and take the action you think proper.
It prohibits "Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address." In my opinion "xxdotcom" is falling on this restriction. Aph.
Also I would like all admins to be aware of User talk:Joe is also violating our username policy, while we've let him or her edit for days. I asked this user to request for username change. Also I would like everyone be aware of that the Foundation doesn't allow anyone to create a domain contains its project without contract, and as a member of internal-l, I haven't heard such contract between the WMF and "". If someone notices this user continue to edit, please consider to place a permanent block. --Aphaia 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Since this Joe ... blanked my recommendation to voluntary rename, and continue to edit, I placed on permanent block. This user also seemed to use his user page for the purpose not related to our project. For the record. --Aphaia 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And another one![edit]

User: - vandal account source & open proxy according to en Wikipedia, regards --Herby talk thyme 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've blocked for three months.--Poetlister 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Requiring attention?[edit]

User:H*Bad12345 may be worth a look --Herby talk thyme 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contributions) may need an attention (now blocked for three days). From proof from IRC and edit pattern, this IP address may be associated to a known vandal on English Wikipedi a. --Aphaia 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Muckracking vandal[edit]

Hello. Just for your information, I am a steward and I have been called in emergency by User:Herbythyme because there was a vandal editing articles with defamatory content on this wiki and no admins were present at this time. I have blocked his accounts and IPs and hidden the defamatory revisions. I hope I haven't broken any rule of your wiki by these actions. If you see this vandal again, please contact me by email to hide the defamatory revisions. Thanks! guillom 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the help. I had been away from my computer a bit longer than normal today. ~ Kalki 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way,looking at these blocks again I see Guillom only blocked one named user for a year and the blocks on the IPs look a little short in view of the nature of the attack. It is possible that someone may wish to review these. Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I just want to thank guillom for doing this and Herby for telling him about it. I was, and am currently, away on Wikibreak and couldn't help. :( Also, I would not oppose the lenghtening of those blocks on Herby's recommendation (but I don't know what the user did). Cbrown1023 talk 17:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

AWB access[edit]

Hello, could I be confirmed to use AWB, please? Sceptre 01:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sceptre 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention required[edit]

User:Rulliblehaxxer - going offline now - sorry --Herby talk thyme 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a GNAA troll - blocked and reverted now. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Rani Mukerji[edit]

Rani Mukerji may need attention. A slow edit warring seems to be started. Hopefully not, but please keep your eyes. Both party involved seems not to be familiar with our norm (mostly editing the article and only). --Aphaia 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


I need to change my name to Miranda b/c that's my first name and I am filling usurpation requests on other projects to complete this request. Thanks a bunch! Real96 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no user:Miranda on our project, so your name is renamed. Personally, I think it is a bad idea, since Wikimedia has several user:Miranda with good edits already, mainly on Slavic language projects, even they are/she is now inactive; but it is fully up to your choice to kick them off. --Aphaia 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I mainly contribute on .simple, .en, .es wikipedias as well as wikibooks, commons, wikiquotes, and wikinews. I am/will be the Miranda on those accounts. Thanks for helping! Miranda 01:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Public user account[edit]

Just spotted User:PublicUserAccount whilst recent-changes patrolling. Don't know if there are any other public accounts, but perhaps this one should be blocked now. --SunStar Net 09:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not that active here, but I'll deal with large-scale vandalism if anyone wants me to help them clean it up. Just leave a message at w:User talk:SunStar Net (since I don't often check my talkpage here!) and I'll take care of it. --SunStar Net 09:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your notice, traditional (and easy) way to deal with those public user account is, just logging in and replace their password. Now this account is annihilated. --Aphaia 10:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


ilikepie4 is probably a sockpuppet of ilikepie and other probable sockpuppets keep vandalizing my talk page

—This unsigned comment is by AFUSCO (talkcontribs) .
this username has now been permanently blocked, as one of the names that have been used in part of an infantile multiple-username vandalism spree. It is likely that others will follow. ~ Kalki 01:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


Can someone rename this account to "Curps". I tried creating the account Curps, but a HTTP 500 error occurred at user creation, so I had to create another name (Crxer being the one I use here since I couldnt create Curps)_. No idea what caused this problem. --Curps 09:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (actual Wikiquote username Crxer (talk · contributions) — JQ)

As there is very little evidence presented that you are actually the w:User:Curps that you seem to be claiming to be, and rather strong indications that you are probably not, that request cannot presently be granted, as it has become a common practice among vandals to seek to impersonate users on other wikis. ~ Kalki 10:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am w:User:Curps, email for confirmation. I have email enabled, which many impostors will often not do. --Curps 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC) (actual Wikiquote username Crxer (talk · contributions) — JQ)
    • Instead I ask you to put a message on your Wikipedia userpage "I am requesting for renaming on Engllish Wikiquote" as w:User:Curps. Also I ask you to change your signature while you confirm your claim. I agree with Kalki it is very unlikely. Thanks. --Aphaia 10:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to state, that as the eMail for the account is not enabled at Wikipedia it is highly irrelevant whatever "confirmation" you might give through an eMail account here. ~ Kalki 10:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point, Kalki. There is no edit on English Wikipedia page since our replies, so we are now better to block this account just as impostor? --Aphaia 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That this person was probably an imposter was fairly obvious from the start. I agree the account should now be blocked as a vandal's efforts at an impersonation, and will now do so. ~ Kalki 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I support this block, given that w:User:Curps specifically states that "anyone else using this same name anywhere else (IRC chat, e-mail, message forum websites, in person in real life, etc) is not me", and that they haven't been heard from since last August, practically inviting impersonation attempts. I have also struck the false usernames in the signatures above and added the actual (now blocked) username from the edit history, mainly to provide the contributions links and to avoid the appearance of a legitimate Curps (talk · contributions) at this point.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

QOTD - the perils of procrastination...[edit]

I doubt that it will greatly change my tendencies to wait until the last available minute to do many things (like making final selections for the "Quote of the Day") but I had some rather frustrating inconveniences in posting today's quote.

With no QOTD suggestions by anyone else posted, I decided to gather up more material on Robert Fulghum. I was in the process of gradually doing so, intending to source some quotes I had found, when I incidentally reverted a recent edit to the Jesus page and then attempted to add a few things to the Ferdinand Foch page — whereupon I discovered my cable connection to be down. It remained down for several hours, and as the QOTD deadline approached I learned the cable system had gone down entirely in two towns in my area. When it remained down after the midnight (UTC) deadline I hopped into my car, drove a few miles to somewhere I knew there to be a Wi-Fi "hotspot" that I hoped I could link through, and standing outside a building in a slight drizzle, I did make a strong enough connection with my laptop to make a few edits. I posted the QOTD, and to the extent I had been able to work on it earlier, I posted revisions to the Fulghum page, then left the hotspot, took care of a few other things, returned home, found the cable still to be down, and attended to many other matters. After having been down for about 14 hours the cable link finally came back on about an hour ago, and I could resume my normal web browsing and post this short explanation of matters.

I expect that this normally available hotspot which I accessed will usually be up even on the rare occasions that my own cable connections go down, but in the event I am ever so late as to not have posted something to the QOTD page within an hour after the normal deadline, it should be presumed some drastic situation has prevented me from doing so, and selections should be made by some other admin. The main page will usually have a red link to the appropriate page for the day, which only an admin can edit, and I also usually have a link to the current month's QOTD pages on my user sub-page "User:Kalki/Chalkboard".

A quote (represented here by "QOTD ~ [[AUTHOR]]") can be posted to this blank page within this format structure:

<div style="background: {{{color}}}"> QOTD ~ [[AUTHOR]] {{QoDfooter|Month={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}|Year=2007}} </div>

When there are QOTD suggestions posted, I will probably try to make more selections a bit earlier than I have been doing, and eventually might even try to get into the habit of selecting more of them a day before the deadline, but I wouldn't expect this anytime soon. At least for now and the immediate future, I will probably remain a habitual procrastinator about making the final selections, and usually wait until the last few hours to do so. ~ Kalki 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for calm and patience[edit]

I am troubled by recent events in which I see many respected sysops from different projects using increasingly angry invective in their arguments about legitimate questions with arguable sides. With the Poetlister situation as yet unresolved, and a recent incident on Meta (not provided with an informative link to "the Gastrich issue", unfortunately) apparently causing sufficient bad feeling between Aphaia and Herbythyme that the latter has withdrawn his Wikiquote RfA, I worry that we might be losing our collective "cool". Now, I'm not going to try to be some kind of cross-project diplomat — I don't have the time and energy to do this well, and I wouldn't want to make things worse by stumbling on others' sensitivities — but I would like to ask for some calm and patience as Wikiquotians, especially our admin staff, consider our own current challenges. I would also be so bold as to make a few suggestions, which folks can take or leave as they see fit (but I hope will give some consideration to):

  • First of all, let's remember that everyone here is a volunteer. No one should feel compelled by anything other than their own estimate of their time, energy, and goals when deciding what to work on. If folks are not devoting sufficient work to a problem, it means that we don't have a community drive to tackle this. (That's why I periodically jump into discussions to suggest we aren't prepared as a community to fix some obvious problems.) If there are true emergencies, we should be prepared to allow for occasional expendient action, but also be prepared to review and possibly correct such action later.
  • The flip side of this is that each of us should be aware of our own limitations in interest, time, energy, and commitments. As we tackle more work, we should be prepared to let go of other work that has become less critical to us, whether temporarily or long-term. The decision can only be made by each editor, and each of us should be prepared to cede ground on other issues when we make these choices. (For instance, I've accepted a lesser role in VfDs and policy work recently because I'm focusing on article improvement and real-world activities at the moment. I don't feel I can do more than make suggestions and occasionally research questions until I'm prepared to devote more time to these other crucial tasks.)
  • On the specific issue of Poetlister (talk · contributions), she has kindly refrained so far from doing any sysop work (or any editing at all, except for a response to the discussion) since this debate started. If she can continue to be patient with us, I'm sure we can do a proper job of examining the situation in the context of Wikiquote.

Above all, I'd like to call for more effort in assuming good faith and practicing civility. It's notoriously easy to write things in text posts that unintentionally (or sometimes intentionally) hurt others' feelings. It's equally easy to misintepret words, or correctly interpret unwise hasty comments. Most of us sysops are an opinionated bunch, so we can be expected to be quite vocal and pointed in our statements. But we all got here because we showed a track record of thoughtful work and dedication to improving Wikimedia projects. If we find ourselves getting angry over bad situations, let's please try to "take a time out" and cool off, rather than escalate until people stop working with each other.

Thanks for listening to yet another of my diatribes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


another user in the ilikepie series came and vandalized my talk page ~ AFUSCO 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That username has now been blocked by an admin. I would like to point out that it is also very unlikely that I am the only one who has noticed "AFUSCO" seems to do little more than complain about vandalism to the AFUSCO talk page a few minutes after one of the oh-so-tedious and moronic vandals shows up and posts some ludicrous threat on it or other pages. Of course that could be an incredible coincidence. Or it could be a fairly obvious sign that this user might be one of the fatuous fools who waste everyone's time polluting the project with puerile pranks. ~ Morpheus 01:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that Morpheus has made a good call, as seen by this review of the data:
1) June 7, 1:10 - User:Ilikepie6 vandalizes User:AFUSCO's talk page.
2) June 7, 1:11 - User:AFUSCO reverts the vandalism.
3) June 8, 20:41 - User:Ilikepie7 vandalizes User:AFUSCO's talk page.
4) June 8, 20:41 - User:AFUSCO reverts the vandalism.

The first reversion was made one minute after the vandalism; the second reversion was made in the very same minute. Are we to assume that User:AFUSCO stands perpetually on guard, ever-vigilant, Argus-eyed, for changes on his or her talk page? - InvisibleSun 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Other interesting points might be:
  1. Why AFUSCO has been stick to this project, without not factual contributions, despites of his user page statement?
  2. And how can Ilikepie* find such less standing user is active on a particular website? --Aphaia 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Crosswiki vandalism IP[edit]

user: - this IP has created vandal only accounts on a number of including en Wikibooks, Meta & en Wikitionary. You may consider a block is in order, regards --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


ilikepie7 just vandalized my talk page can you block him and check his ip address to see if it is shared (if you cannot just let me know what the ip is and i will check if it is shared and where it is) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AFUSCO (talkcontribs) 8 June 2007, 20:47:44 (UTC)


I blocked (talk · contributions), an IP address assigned to a certain school, since

Herby informed me about those blocking on meta (thanks!). He mentioned also vandalisms on English Wikibooks. The blocking term I placed is one month, but I am not negative to expand it. Just for your information. --Aphaia 11:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain it is a school despite the Wikipedia page. I am pretty sure it is the source of quite a bit of vandalism and spambot type pages. After repeated unblock requests on Commons & Books I have sent an abuse report on the IP to the provider. The unblock request now states We will stop using Wikimedia projects. Someone has been kind enough to set up a wiki for us this morning on Books and We give up using Wikimedia projects, and you win. We'll stop for good now.. on Commons. Certainly today over a minimum of three projects some 8/10 spambot pages were created and a while ago two vandal bot accounts on Books originated from this IP. --Herby talk thyme 12:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That IP was blocked for Willy on Wheels-type vandalism on the Akan Wikibooks, where I'm the only sysop there. It didn't create spambot pages, but it was used for pagemove vandalism to policy pages. I'm glad it's blocked. --SunStar Net 18:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think this block should be extended. Indefinitely blocked on en Wp [1]. I have blocked for a year on Books & Commons --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of Office note[edit]

OUT OF OFFICE: Due to significant real-life changes (including a new job and the birth of my son), I will be forced to take a timeout from my editing activities on Wikiquote. I hope to resume in a month or two. I will occasionally pop in when I have the time (can't completely shake the habit), but my regular presence will no longer be possible for a while. ~ UDScott 14:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am, for all intents and purposes, back - albeit probably not at quite the same level of activity as I was before (but for good reason). I will certainly continue my prior level of admin involvement, but I'll probably have to curtail some of my page creation activities. ~ UDScott 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest vandal[edit]

Hoping that no one will object I have requested CU on the latest vandal (User:Flannigan Hittagan). I have not seen this exact form of vandalism before but it is reminiscent of some "mumfum" vandalism on Wikibooks last year. If the request is fulfilled I'll pass back any info I can. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Info emailed to Jeff for consideration --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A heads up[edit]

In case it is missed. The debate here seems to be becoming a little heated. I have requested good faith and will keep an eye when I am on wiki but it may be that I am not around or that some admin intervention is required. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you have 3RR here both parties are now on 3 on two different pages? --Herby talk thyme 12:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd appreciate admin review of my actions when someone is on line - thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I've posted an analysis and recommendations under Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Categorization. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies[edit]

Recent checks have revealed the following to be open provies (according to en WP) and the source of spambots/vandals. You may wish to review them here.

Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now blocked these four IPs for the period of a year. ~ Kalki 09:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have posted open-proxy block notices on the pages, using {{blocked proxy}} that I just imported from Wikipedia and adapted for Wikiquote. Thanks for bringing these to our attention, Herby. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have edited the template slightly, pointing the policy link to Meta instead of to the English Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 talk 00:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)