Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

Community portal
Welcome		Reference desk
Request an article		Village pump
Archives		Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalism • Votes for deletion
Shortcut
Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

InstructionsEdit

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 or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees. 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:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots
Promotion

Tools:

Discussions


User:Libraryclerk0191 sockpuppets continue to reappearEdit

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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
I've blocked this account as a sockpuppet, thanks for reporting. --Ferien (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
The System is blocking me. What a shocK! ;-) U.C.Besserman (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]

Page protection for Taste the Blood of DraculaEdit

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[reply]

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

IP information tools not working, or probably my own problemEdit

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[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[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[reply]
I've reboot it and now it works for me. Thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Admins mailing listEdit

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[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[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[reply]
Ah, got it. In this case, I would support this idea. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

I will be inactive for a whileEdit

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[reply]

A nonsenseical bugEdit

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[reply]

SandboxEdit

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[reply]

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=3274980"