Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/008

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Newbie question![edit]

OK - I came across this. I'm pretty sure it is not notable but was created by a named user rather than an IP. There would have been a time as an admin when I would have deleted such a page. I now think it polite to at least enquire before doing so and have placed a message on the user's talk page. There is a template in use on en Books that places a "query" message on the page concerned and then automatically lists it for speedy deletion after seven days if not removed (intended for "one sentence" type stub pages) - would something similar (amended to be appropriate in all respects to Wikiquote) be any use?

I guess equally - so that I learn - was this an appropriate way to handle this? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we haven't imported so-called "prod" yet ... so it would be listed on the normal course of VfD. As for user, it might be the case {{fame}} is useful. --Aphaia 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Since this is an article titled David hawkyard created by User:Dhawk 12, in the absence of an obvious connection to someone notable (from whom the user might merely be assuming a "fan" name), our usual practice has been to immediately nominate it for deletion and post a {{vanity-warn}} message to the creator's talk page. This en:WQ practice predates our recent increase of more general "unremarkable subject" speedy-deletions. We might want to reevaluate the situation for other alternatives, in light of having more sysops and a revised WQ:SD, but this method at least has long precedence supporting it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the information from both of you. There is always a careful line to be trodden between avoiding scaring new folk and dealing with unwanted material (on any wiki). My own view is that VfD is a little heavy for some situations while "speedy" may be a little "trigger happy" (I have been accused of that!). The content issues are quite different here to Wikibooks (as I said on wb I would have deleted the page with hardly any thought I guess) but the process issues are not dissimilar - I'll reflect some (& would probably have deleted the page after 24/48 hours maybe as non notable in the absence of further info). I'll keep learning --Herby talk thyme 09:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I was a bit hasty, but I speedy deleted this page for being about an unremarkable subject (before I saw this discussion). I didn't find anything about this person and there was no claim to notability. Perhaps I should have gone the VFD route, but I felt justified. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded from having to delete so many pages such as this. ~ UDScott 13:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anythin either, so there's no doubt it should be deleted, in my opinion. It could be a tryout for deletion review!--Cato 15:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

New "Toys"[edit]

Some info found today. Firstly we now have a local spam blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which may well be useful. The other is very neat particularly when finding bot pages and is Special:DeletedContributions. I know folk tend to just delete such - my own view is that placing a block (a week for me if no valid contribs) acts as a marker & is quicker than placing a user page message but this will allow a review of previously deleted material. Longer blocks can then be placed on repeat offenders.

Hope it helps someone - cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Relient K[edit]

Relient K appears to contain Copyright violations. 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

InvisibleSun deleted the inappropriately complete lyrics of "Be My Escape". Thanks for calling attention to it. In the future, you are welcome to delete it yourself. Just include a statement like "removed entire lyrics as copyvio" in the edit summary so that editors know why it was removed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For those with a curious nature![edit]

You may find this tool of interest. The previous one died & this is new (so may continue to go through some changes). Regards --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Def Con level rising[edit]

Take a look at the block log, user creation log (& if you want to the history on my talk page). Certainly worth staying alert - Zarbon may not be happy I think --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Now with that wonderful tool hindsight! In practice I don't think this was actually "Zarbon" - the modus operandi was not the same, I had had no real interaction with them and the interest in "briefs" together with the naming style is indicative of another cross wiki vandal. Just my thoughts --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A possible suggestion[edit]

IN the course of trying to deal with the spate of account creation yesterday ot was suggested to me that we look at getting mw:Extension:Username Blacklist enabled. It apparently would allow us to block names relevant to us. I cannot see it is enabled here and would require a bugzilla request. Views would be welcome - regards --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How effective is such a blacklist? If you ban (purely for the sake of argument!) the name Herbythyme, will that stop Herbytime or Herbythyme2 or Thymeherby?--Cato 10:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Already had it MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist for info. Will add Zarbon to it I think, --Herby talk thyme 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, Herby, why do you doubt me?! :-P :-P Cbrown1023 talk 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No doubts - just couldn't find it when I needed it. Might look at adding a little to it as well. --Herby talk thyme 07:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


i have given up vandalizing wikiquote can you please unblock ilikepie so i can edit using my first accountIlikepie8 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we have no reason to believe such a statement, especially coming from someone who has been so persistent in causing disruptions, and who just yesterday appeared to be probing Wikipedia ([1]), "checking up on how quick the admins are" ([2]), presumably in preparation for disruption there, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. By the way, I found this gibberish by chance[3]. I have no strong opinion about that, though. --Aphaia 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

one problem with your idea my wikipedia account is Putmedown and if you let ilikepie on for 1 week i can make constructive editsIlikepie8 19:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing his or her recent edit including on my user page, I think he or she deserves indefinite blocking but due to respect of the spirit of WP:COI, I leave my fellow sysops the final decision and make here only a suggestion. --Aphaia 20:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Concern Over Editor[edit]

Hi! My name is Shehzad and I've been working on wikipedia for three years now. I just want to raise my concern over an editor: User:Shshshsh. I think this user is violating Rani Mukerji's quote page. He keeps on removing quotes and changing them in a devious way. This user gets extremely obsessive over actress Preity Zinta and when something is written about her as a quote on Rani's page, he tends to revert the edit. Please help. This has been going on for more than a month now. I thought I could handle the editor with my words but it turns out he's completely cynical. If somehow, he can be blocked from the page, that would be appreciated. Thank you. - shez_15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shez 15 (talkcontribs) 06:29, 16 Jul 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys my name is Shahid - User:Shshshsh. This guy User:Shez 15 seems to be a big fan of Rani Mukerji. If you stick to Wikipedia, you will see how many users had conflicts with him. He is the one who hates Preity Zinta. He was always removing things from her page. Now he adds quotes of Rani Mukerji is saying that Preity Zinta talks too much. He keeps adding quotes from talk shows where people only say fudges. Why do we need the quote where Rani Mukerji dirties on Preity Zinta. Talk Shows are not good templates to quote them. It is unencyclopedic. Quoting actors who are talking badly on other actors is not good. He has also added quotes of directors/actors where they say that Rani Mukerji is better than other actresses in Bollywood (ie Kareena Kapoor, Kajol)
Apart from it, He uses videos as references and this is not permitted. Why should you or me believe that he quotes it in the best way without bias? I don't trust him, just like no-one does. His talk shows are all come from video sites. I do think that talk shows could be a good reference when it comes to be at least a written text.
I believe the best source is a journalistic content with sources like or
He also brought quotes from It is a net fuction where fans create fansites. Who knows, maybe he is the only one who created this. You and me can also create sites for our favorites there in I removed these quotes from both the pages of Rani Mukerji and Preity Zinta. You can also see that. There are quotes there like I love Rani Mukerji the most in the world after my mom. Fans of Mukerji added unexisting quotes while Shez 15 adds it to Wikiquote.
Look, this is User:Shez 15's IP - You can see how much warns he received on his talk page (which were blanked later by him). Look, here you can see his talk page before he has blanked it [4]. And look what he has done here [5]. He is just a die-hard fan of Rani Mukerji. I don't know what's the matter. Just like he asked you for help, now I ask you for help. It is quite impossible to work here when he keeps adding non-notable, unreferenced and unreliable quotes. Best regards, --Shshshsh 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
My initial look at this situation makes a couple of things clear:
  • Both editors should probably review Wikiquote:Civility. It's understandable when two arguing editors lose their cool with each other, but evidence of this when making otherwise logical arguments to third parties undermines their cases.
  • There are a number of issues involved here: failure to follow basic Wikiquote formatting guidelines, possible lack of understanding of basic wiki etiquette, reliable sourcing as it applies to Wikiquote and especially transient audiovisual material, etc.
I can't speak for anyone else, but it'll take me a little time to review the overall situation. I ask the editors for patience, and to use the time to consider how each may learn more about Wikiquote policies and practices and help us to focus on the relevant facts, not the people making the arguments. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
A bit off topic, so you are willing to endorse the latest version of WQ:CIVIL, Jeff? :) --Aphaia 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Not yet. There's some redundancy, organization issues, and ideas I'd like to review first. I know we got it largely from w:WP:CIVIL, but their version seems to suffer from the same problems. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank both Shez 15 (talk · contributions) and Shshshsh (talk · contributions) for not editing the disputed articles Preity Zinta and Rani Mukerji since bringing this issue up here. I apologize for my delay in looking into this matter.

This appears to be an edit war predominately between two fans, one (Shez 15) of Preity Zinta and the other (Shshshsh) of Rani Mukerji. Both seem to be treating Wikiquote as a fan website, where any comments from these clearly notable actresses that get published somewhere are inherently worthy of inclusion here. Neither editor seems to have read Wikiquote:Templates/People, to see how to format people articles. Both have engaged in personal attacks through edit summaries and on their user talk pages. This edit-warring also appears to have taken place on the Wikipedia pages for these two actresses as well.

Editors of an article are often fans of the subject, but they are expected to leave their fannish enthusiasm at the virtual door of Wikimedia projects. They should edit the articles with a view to the project's goals, including reliable sourcing (for both WP and WQ) and quoteworthiness (for WQ). For lead sections in Wikiquote articles, the material should read like a neutral encyclopedia article introduction, not acclamation. (I suggest we copy the current WP lead sections from each article, which seem fairly neutral.) The quotes should be something pithy that one might read in a very large version of Bartlett's Famous Quotations or The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, not just various interview excerpts about what they think. No one is going to remember Zinta for saying "My Hindi direction is screwed up" or Mukerji for saying "I love daal chawal". This is strictly fan website material. Nor are quotes about other actresses especially useful. This situation demonstrates that they are often used to fight fan wars through articles rather than to record memorable statements. "Quotes about X" sections (specifically intended for quotes from others about the subject, not the subject's opinions about various topics) should be very limited and include only statements that say something especially unique, pithy, and memorable about the subject, not just "She's very popular in Pakistan" or "She is a lovely co-star to work with".

I ask Shez 15 and Shshshsh to read the following policy and guideline pages:

  • Wikiquote:Civility
  • Wikiquote:Assume good faith — important in content disputes
  • Wikiquote:Vandalism — this means clear defacing of an article, not just a content dispute
  • Wikiquote:Sourced and Unsourced sections — why the distinction is critical on Wikiquote, even more so than for Wikipedia
  • Wikiquote:Templates/People — look at the page in the edit window to see the correct wiki markup
  • Wikiquote:Sourcing — what we mean by "sources" and why we need explicit ones
  • w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources and related pages — what is a reliable source; why we don't consider fansites, wikis, and other user-edited sites to be useful as sources
    • One note about sources: They should be something that any other editor can plausibly check to verify the quote. Videos are usually unacceptable for several reasons which I hope to go into in more detail with the two editors elsewhere. For other media, the accessibility of a source for a quote, as long as it's a reliable source, can be supporting evidence for its quoteworthiness. In other words, something from one of these actresses quoted by The New York Times is probably more of a "famous quote" than something from West Bengal Today, if only because it made it into non-local papers.

I also ask Shez 15 and Shshshsh to spend the next three weeks severely trimming both articles down to truly pithy quotes with impeccable sources in standard Wikiquote format (each quote including a separate, double-bulleted source line immediately below it). Sometime after 0:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — much sooner if I see continued edit warring — I will review the articles and remove anything that I feel is unworthy or inadequately sourced. This is just my personal commitment as a Wikiquote editor, not an admin, and does not preclude other editors from immediately participating in this trimming. In fact, I'd love to see fresh eyeballs on these articles.

Further content discussion (including complaints about my edits, if I make any) should continue on the articles' talk pages. If Shez 15 and Shshshsh, or any other editors, cannot put their personal feelings about the subjects aside to work out reasonable quote articles, especially if they resume personal attacks, I will caution them again, and then block them temporarily if necessary to enforce a "cool down" period. But I sincerely hope that it won't come to this. (If the dispute involves me directly, I will ask another admin to review the situation instead to avoid a conflict of interest.)

I plan to post more detailed advice on the editors' talk pages within the next day. I hope that we can now move on to more productive work on these articles. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Backlog on VfD[edit]

There are a few VfDs past the seven day point and with clear consensus. I would have closed them but I'm not sure of the exact procedure.--Poetlister 11:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to dive in and give it a go ... but the process doesn't look obvious to me either! Sorry --Herby talk thyme 11:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn I wrote up instructions for closures some months ago, but maybe by time away has just made me crazy. Anyway, here's the procedure for closing a discussion with a "delete" result:

  1. Edit the VFD discussion.
  2. At the very top of the discussion (above the header), add {{vt|delete}} ~~~~.
  3. At the very bottom of the discussion (below the last vote/comment), add {{vb}}
  4. Save the page, ideally with an edit summary indicating that you're closing the vote and its result.
  5. Delete the page. You can use "VFD" or similar for the deletion reason.

And here's the procedure for pages with a "keep" or "no consensus" result:

  1. Edit the VFD discussion.
  2. At the very top of the discussion (above the header), add {{vt|keep}} ~~~~ or {{vt|no consensus}} ~~~~.
  3. At the very bottom of the discussion (below the last vote/comment), add {{vb}}
  4. Save the page, ideally with an edit summary indicating that you're closing the vote and its result.
  5. On the discussed page's talk page (i.e., Talk:Article name), add {{vfd-kept-new|Discussion name}} ~~~~.

To archive closed discussions (this works best with multiple tabs or browser windows open):

  1. In one tab or window, open Wikiquote:Votes for deletion and edit the page.
  2. In another tab or window, open Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Log/2007 July (for example; replace the year and month as appropriate for the nomination dates).
  3. Select all the closed discussions from the VFD page and copy them to the clipboard (Ctrl+C for Windows).
  4. Paste into the Log page (Ctrl+V for Windows).
  5. This part we might want to change, but presently pages are listed in the Log in reverse chronological order (newest pages at the top), so if you're archiving multiple pages you'll need to reverse their order from the way they appeared on WQ:VFD.
  6. Delete the archived discussions from WQ:VFD. (You can use Ctrl+X to copy and delete in one go in the previous "copy" step.)
  7. Save both pages. In the edit summary, at least for WQ:VFD, indicate that you're archiving closed discussions. I prefer to name each one in the edit summary, but even a simple "archiving closed discussions" will suffice.

I think that's everything that's needed; if I've forgotten something, hopefully someone else familiar with the process will come along and mention it, and I'll try to incorporate it into the above steps to avoid confusion. —LrdChaos (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That is very useful thanks - I'm more than happy to do my share, regards --Herby talk thyme 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


guess who is vandalizing wikiquote again here [6] and here [7] also here[8] and lastly here [9] —This unsigned comment is by AFUSCO (talkcontribs) .

Blocked by InvisibleSun. Cbrown1023 talk 22:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

According to CU result, AFUSCO, Ilikepie* & Ilikecake* shared the same IP address and AFUSCO, Ilikepie8, all Ilikecake had a same environment for their editing. Other Ilikepie* used its lower compatible version. I therefore presume AFUSCO is a sockpuppet of Ilikepie8 and blocked the former too. --Aphaia 09:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent to see local use of these tools to sort of such disruption, thanks Aphaia --Herby talk thyme 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No prob. :) --Aphaia 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Yay!!!! /me huggles Aphaia; excellent use of your CheckUser tools. :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


OK - I've indef blocked this one. If it is WoW that is correct in my view, if not the account naming may be humorous or in bad faith. If I'm right then CU I think, if I'm wrong unblocking may be appropriate --Herby talk thyme 10:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclining to take the latter, even reluctantly, and prefer to keep your blocking. This user shares the IP address with a crosswiki vandal, referred at m:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/01#Shambaitatmeta @ Meta. I'll send you and JeffQ for further analysis. --Aphaia 10:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Local spam list policy (on the hoof!)[edit]

Err - just realised it might be an idea to share "my" policy on this!

As we have our own blacklist it seemed daft not to use it but maybe views on "how" we do it could be good! My own rule of thumb for ages as far as the bot/index pages are concerned is that it is quicker to block the IP for a week than place a tag. If you then find it has been blocked once before I then make it a month - it's simple anyway. Please note this refers to IP spam, username spam being quite rare.

For the blacklist I take the view that we may as well save unnecessary deleting and editing by prevention so

  1. New pages solely with links. Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
  2. Mass insertion of links (usually the porn spammers). Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
  3. Any other link insertions can happily be for discussion and should be - they are quite rare.

To add to that - if I come across the links on other wikis for the first two categories I have added & will add them to ours (& vice versa). I realise there is a cross wiki blacklist on meta but my experience of them has shown them as less than helpful and it may well be that some links are appropriate to some wikis - the fm radio one I've blacklisted has a "legitimate" page on en wp. However someone has created numerous spamm pages on other wikis with this link in - I do not see that we are likely to require the link and the very act of creating mass pages makes me sure that is was an attempt to spam wikis.

Additionally I would ask that some form of narrative is added (with the #) so that others will know why a url is there in the future and in case the entry is challenged. Just my 0.02 and views welcome, cheers --Herby talk thyme 06:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we would also like to add "other quote websites". Sometimes we have seen "one quote, one link to a particular website" type contributions, or just adding links to a particular website. Those websites usually don't cite sources and we cannot therefore think them as legitimate sources, hence there is no benefit for us to link them. --Aphaia 08:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I would agree with that. Various Wikis have varying tolerance to external links. A part of my background is an en wp spam fighter as such my personal tolerance is quite low. I certainly think that Wikis are "used" to enhance website traffic. The overt ones tend to be caught quite easily (and are the ones I referred to above) however the idea of "one quote, one link" type pages would be something I would not be very happy with as the balance of "reward" for us & the website seems in their favour. --Herby talk thyme 08:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Other opinions?[edit]

An open letter to Wikiquote admins - I've not deleted it as I feel others may want to look at the actual page nor have I blocked the IP as yet? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I speedied it. We don't need to pay attention to vandals. Period. --Aphaia 13:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I was merely interested by the approach & content. Will you block the IP? There is a little recent history on en wp (nothing in "our" log though!). --Herby talk thyme 13:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC) No, but I left a warning message (test2). --Aphaia 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)