|edit the header|
This is a messageboard for all administrators.
Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.
Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior, or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.
The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.
However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.
If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.
To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.
To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].
If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.
Pages needing admin intervention:
- Wikiquote:Protected titles
- MediaWiki:Bad image list
- MediaWiki:Sitenotice id when you update MediaWiki:Sitenotice, id num needs also to be incrementally grown
- MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist For global blacklisting, go to m:Talk:Spam blacklist instead.
- MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (upper compatible w/ MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist)
- Blocking policy
- List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
- Block log
- Wikiquote:Protection policy (now drafting)
- Protection log
- Bencemac, now closed by User:Ningauble. GMGtalk 12:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Vandalism of Castlevania: Symphony of the NightEdit
Under IPs 22.214.171.124 and 126.96.36.199 a handful of offensive edits were made to the entire Castlevania: Symphony of the Night page. Was unable to undo all of them, as I'm too new an account. --Aetropos (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Aetropos: Thanks for this. Protection, block, suppressed edits, etc. Very helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Several vandals afoot...Edit
Aside from the Toy Story/Shrek vandal, we have 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, Stopthebuyers, Wewillbuythisplace, etc.
- 220.127.116.11-- Absolute nonsense, changing certain networks to PBS without explanation.
- 18.104.22.168, Stopthebuyers, Wewillbuythisplace-- Redoing vandalism, unlawfully bullying Tegel, spamming, trying to defend other vandals, the works. I request all of these users be blocked infinitely and the pages they vandalized be protected indefinitely, as well as my talk page, GreenMeansGo's talk page, etc. (the talk pages need indefinite protection, because short-term protection will not stop the vandals). WikiLubber (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Between User:GreenMeansGo and myself, it looks like they are blocked. Can you point out any further users needing blocks or diffs needing reversion? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- 22.214.171.124 has joined the vandalism squadron. But my talk page should be protected, as well, indefinitely. I know these vandals will not stop unless what they vandalize is protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- One month of protection is not enough. One year at least should suffice. WikiLubber (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe we should only let confirmed users edit here. Letting IPs at it is just asking for trouble. WikiLubber (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have long said so on my user page, but there is no consensus for it. Even the fearless leader Jimbo holds it so important to let people freely edit without needing to sign in first, that it is worth forcing us to either waste boundless time and effort cleaning up utter nonsense and deliberate vandalism or else just accept that the wiki is irrevocably and irredeemably full of crap. This is meta-policy at the highest level of the organization, and is extremely unlikely to change. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- I do not support a blanket ban on anon IP editing here or anywhere on the Wikimedia projects, but I can accept that long term protection of pages from anon edits for 6 months or a year should be liberally used where disruptive edits are endemic, and protection of pages from anon editing for a month or less should probably be applied rather casually after even minor disruptions. I know that in recent years I have not always had enough time or presence to examine some of the more extensive incidents of subtle or overt vandalism which have been occurring, and regarding many pages I do not have enough direct knowledge to make assessments on some of the dubious edits, and thus I am often not inclined to immediately block IPs even short term without clearly overt vandalism. Long term protection of many of the targeted pages from anon editing for up to a year is something I already can and do readily accept as a practical measure, and even permanent protection in such ways is something I probably can also accept as appropriate on some pages. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 01:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- If that is the criteria, then I say at least year should suffice for pages that are being vandalized by repetitive major disruptions such as the Toy Story/Shrek vandals who continuously add non-existent quotes. But should that occur again after the protection expires, I recommend no less than double the prior protection. WikiLubber (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- What projects have disabled anonymous editing entirely? Surely none of the larger ones? Enwiki, dewiki, frwiki, data, meta, commons...none of these have done so as far as I am aware. GMGtalk 12:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Need clarification about User name policyEdit
I need clarification in following:
"Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah") are prohibited. In addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion are prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intolerance, are blatantly disrespectful of the religion, or promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others (e.g. "ChristOnly", etc.). Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed."
Can i continue ?If any admin respond to me , i will ask the question
- Are there religious connotations to "Kromiom" or "chromium"??? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Bona Dea ([bɔ.na ˈde.a] 'Good Goddess') was a goddess in ancient Roman religion. She was associated with chastity and fertility in Roman women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_Dea
- "Bonadea" user name is against user name policy .Any one can take this god name for user name ?
- While I'm sure there are some persons who claim to be practitioners of Roman reconstructionist pagan religion, there is no actual community of Roman pagans nor has there been for several centuries. The goal of the policy is to ensure that existing religious sensibilities aren't infringed upon and that fights don't emerge because of shock names. I don't know that anyone would be offended by this name, so I don't think it meets the spirit of the rule. I'm happy to read others' thoughts, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see how "admin confirmed user name violation". Also please note that Wikiquote, Simple and Wikipedia are three different projects and might have differences in username policies. By common sense it is not a problem if someone's username resembles some obscure deity nobody worships anymore or has never heard about. Mankind names asteroids and who knows what objects after ancient Greek or Roman gods, and that is not a problem in the slightest. jni (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Also that vandalism report is about non-existent user. This is just total waste of time. jni (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Jni you are absolutely correct.
In Wikipedia Bot flagged following way : Commented about an user B0nadea.
B0nadea is a God of Roman religion.Do not use the name of a political, military or religious figure or event (including real people).Do not choose something that might be offensive. Your user name should not suggest that you hold any particular political, religious or other belief.
No need to continue this discussion more
I recommend this page be protected from these IP vandals for at no less than a year. I tire of the vandals inexplicably removing our vandalism reports. They should understand that Wikiquote is not the place for their juvenile games. WikiLubber (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)