Task

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

General

Mail requirement

Fellows, please confirm your wiki mail or put it on your userpage. Cheers, --Aphaia 10:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

A block on user:76.5.105.107 would be good - cross wiki IP Nazi vandal - moving on to the next clean up - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clean-up, Herby. I didn't notice other his vandalisms. Already I put a 24 hours blocking on this IP address, since a similar text was posted on the user page of this IP address. Reviewing other edits, now I support to extend the term.--Aphaia 07:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week on WP, Books, Commons & Meta <g> & good morning & thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Problem

I recieved a welcome message on my talk page. However, the edit summery was "Asshole." Just wanted to make the admins aware. Markie 21:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that this vandal is trying to create confusion by actually adding the correct welcome message content, but accompanying it with an offensive edit summary. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this, any ideas? For now I just blocked him for 2 days, and left his edits intact because their content seems fine. iddo999 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a permanent block is appropriate, as the account was almost certainly created by one of our regular vandals who seem to have nothing more interesting or important to do with their lives than to cause trouble for others. I will delete the pages and renew them just to clean the slate. ~ Kalki 22:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, this Markie that I responded to here is actually a cross-wiki vandal (see my usertalk page for details). He probably created the "asshole" edit summaries with his other account, and then complained about his actions here. This person is a piece of work... Yes, one good idea is to delete the pages and re-create them without the offensive edit summary, but it's a minor issue so I guess it's also ok to skip it. Whatever you prefer. iddo999 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TUFKAAP and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kcattaikiw. FWN 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the usernames Dark Squall and Jcart1534 (accounts created here at the same time as that of other impersonation attempts) are those of an admin and a user currently on RfA at Wikinews and appear to be part of the impersonation spree. i've notified the two users on their Wikinews talk pages. Doldrums 22:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now confirmed after a checkuser that the IP 24.115.238.8, the User:MyName (n:User:MyName) vandal, created the vandal accounts. His IP has been blocked indef on Wikinews. [1].

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FWN (talk • contribs) 00:36 May 6, 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote user 24.115.238.8 was blocked for one week beginning April 28 because of vandalism and harassment, which means that the block would have been lifted right in time for the new bout of vandalism and impersonation today. For this reason and because of the history on Wikinews, I am going to place an indefinite block on Wikiquote as well. - InvisibleSun 02:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of recent WQ/WN impersonation attack

I am posting this message simultaneously to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard (WQ:AN) and n:Wikinews:Admin action alerts (WN:ALERT), using my long-established accounts on each project. By examining WQ's Special:Listadmins to find my username and check my contributions to find this edit, everyone can confirm that I am indeed the real Wikiquote sysop Jeffq. By seeing the simultaneous Wikinews edit, which could not be quickly copied, cross-project links changed, and then reposted by a imposter in the same minute, everyone can confirm that I am the real Wikinews user Jeffq and therefore same person as q:User:Jeffq. I have also used this technique in the past, as can be seen in my Wikinews user contributions page, and Wikinews sysops DragonFire1024 and Nyarlathotep can vouch that they have seen me do this in the past in an effort to stop impersonators. So much for my credentials.

Here is a timeline of the recent Wikiquote/Wikinews impersonation attack, in which a vandal registered Wikinews's "Markie" on Wikiquote, and Wikiquote's "Iddo999" on Wikinews, as well as several supplement usernames to add to the confusion. I have chronologically ordered the two new username creations and the user contributions of the four principles (real q:User:Iddo999 and n:User:Markie, and imposter's fake n:Iddo999 and q:Markie) to demonstrate how this vandal works. I've coded the edits as follows:

Real users have black text; imposter's edits are in red text.
Wikiquote activity is show with a green background; Wikinews activity has a yellow background.
All times are UTC. The date of the attack is 5 May 2007.

I'm hoping that this timeline will help sysops who haven't seen this kind of attack understand how the vandal attempts to provoke them into rash action through alternating reasonable statements and rude comments from supposed foreign sysops with hurt feelings. Here's what happened:

20:40 FAKE Markie: Markie (Talk | contribs | block) New user [2]
20:42 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) User:Markie (New page: <div style="margin-bottom:3ex; text-align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px black; background-color: lightblue;">110px[[Image:Flag of t...) (top) [rollback]
20:43 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Markie (New page: You may have more luck contacting me at [http://en.wikinews.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Markie&action=edit&section=new my Wikinews talk page.])
21:10 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard (Notice)
21:11 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) NHL:Sharks Lose Game 5 to Wings (tag sources)
21:11 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) NHL:Sharks Lose Game 5 to Wings (unpublish - no cource) (top)
21:13 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) Wikinews:Requested articles (→Los Angeles police uses excessive force on immigration protesters - delete copied and pasted article is linked as source anyway) (top)
21:20 FAKE Iddo999: Iddo999 (Talk | contribs) New user [3]
21:21 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) m Category:Proverbs (Reverted edit by Thomaquinaser (talk • contributions) to last version by 210.7.70.46)
21:21 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) m Help:Contents (Reverted edit by Thomaquinaser (talk • contributions) to last version by Kalki)
21:21 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) m List of films (Reverted edit by Thomaquinaser (talk • contributions) to last version by 194.225.53.189)
21:21 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) m List of literary works (Reverted edit by Thomaquinaser (talk • contributions) to last version by Kalki) (top) [rollback]
21:21 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) m List of people by name (Reverted edit by Thomaquinaser (talk • contributions) to last version by Poetlister) (top) [rollback]
21:21 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) m Wikiquote:Village pump (Reverted edit by Thomaquinaser (talk • contributions) to last version by Aphaia)
21:21 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (New page: Please Leave A Message)
21:21 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User:Iddo999 (New page: I've been working mostly on the Noam Chomsky page so far. I also translated the entire page into Hebrew. In case you see a sourced quote I added that doesn't have an online link...)
21:23 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) Wikinews:Admin action alerts (PLEASE HELP WIKIQUOTE MASSIVE RAPID-FIRE ATTACK)
21:24 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) Wikinews:Admin action alerts (→MASSIVE RAPID-FIRE ATTACK AT WIKIQUOTE)
21:27 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) Wikinews:Admin action alerts (→MASSIVE RAPID-FIRE ATTACK AT WIKIQUOTE)
21:29 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (you said leave a message)
21:29 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User:Iddo999 (fix the link) (top)
21:32 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) Large Crowds in Midwest: Obama Increases Security (correct date template and tag sources) (top)
21:32 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:AnnaLothson (weclome) (top)
21:32 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (MASSIVE-ATTACK?)
21:33 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Havelock (welcome)
21:34 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) Wikinews:Admin action alerts (→MASSIVE RAPID-FIRE ATTACK AT WIKIQUOTE - rmv section - not related to wn and is now under control)
21:36 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Markie (WHATEVER)
21:38 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (Wikiquote)
21:39 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Markie (it wasn't me)
21:39 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (Jerk)
21:41 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Markie (RUDE BEHAVIOR ON WIKIQUOTE) (top)
21:42 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Havelock (Water cooler)
21:42 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (RE: it wasent me)
21:43 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Markie (→it wasn't me - re) (top) [rollback]
21:44 FAKE Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→RE: it wasent me)
21:45 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→Wikiquote)
21:47 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (CONFIRM IDENTITY)
21:48 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→Wikiquote)
21:50 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (re)
21:50 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→Wikiquote)
21:51 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→Wikiquote - sign)
21:52 FAKE Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→Wikiquote)
21:55 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard (→Slight Problem)
22:02 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) Wikinews:Admin action alerts (→Cross-Wiki impersonation - reply) (top)
22:04 Real Markie: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (blocked template) (top)
22:11 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) User talk:Iddo999 (→Markie and Iddo999 account - re)
22:19 Real Iddo999: (hist) (diff) Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard (top) [rollback]

Here's how I see the sequence of events:

Imposter registers fake q:Markie and complains at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard about vandal's welcome message, actually from himself using another new username.
Real n:Markie happens to be doing ordinary editing at the time.
- NOTE: I suspect Markie was chosen as a currently-editing, known sysop who hadn't been involved in this kind of attack before.
Getting no WQ reaction yet, imposter registers fake n:Iddo999.
Real q:Iddo999 happens to be doing vandalism reversion, possibly by same vandal under another account.
- NOTE: Again, Iddo999 was probably chosen as a actively-editing, known sysop unfamiliar with this attack pattern.
Imposter, using fake n:Iddo999, posts "MASSIVE RAPID-FIRE ATTACK AT WIKIQUOTE" messages at n:Wikinews:Admin action alerts.
Real n:Markie tries to respond to this on alert page and n:Iddo999 talk page.
Meanwhile on Wikiquote, fake q:Markie asks real q:Iddo999 on his talk page a logical question: why ask me to help?
On Wikinews, after doing some more ordinary editing, real n:Markie decides to delete irrelevant alert.
Imposter, as fake n:Iddo999, goes to Wikinews and dismisses real n:Markie with a "WHATEVER" on his talk page. Real n:Markie calmly justifies removal on n:Iddo999's talk page.
Imposter quickly returns to Wikiquote as fake q:Markie and calls real q:Iddo999 a "JERK" on his talk page. Real q:Iddo999 calmly denies the attack and suggests it's the vandal.
Imposter goes back to Wikinews as fake n:Iddo999 and complains to real n:Markie of "RUDE BEHAVIOR" on his talk page.
Imposter quickly returns to Wikiquote as fake q:Markie and claims "it wasent me".
Imposter goes back to Wikinews and posts a textually convincing claim to be real WQ sysop asking him to "CONFIRM IDENTITY", but the URL in the link reveals another insult. Real n:Markie nevertheless follows the reasonable request.
On Wikiquote, real q:Iddo999 posts a notice of the vandalism from fake q:Markie under the latter's "Slight Problem" at WQ:AN.
Imposter tries one more insulting post on Wikinews to real n:Markie before ceasing activity with these two fake usernames.

As I said the first time I saw one of these attacks unfold, I believe the best course of action during the attacks is for each project's sysops to temporarily block the newly-created, supposed foreign sysop names. Once this is done, the confusion from these names will cease. At this point, the real sysops from the projects can confirm whether or not they are the new users on the other project by posting a note on their home project, either on their own user talk page or an appropriate project page (like WQ:AN or WN:ALERT). The other project's sysops can then verify their identity by finding the sysop name using Special:Listadmins (which unlike an admin-list page cannot be spoofed by vandals), clicking the linked username, then checking that user's contributions to find the confirmation posting. For example:

Block wikiquote:User:Markie and wikinews:User:Iddo999 for 1 day.
Each real sysop posts something to their own project; e.g.:
- wikinews:User:Markie posts to wikinews:WN:ALERT: "The current wikiquote:User:Markie is not me. Please disable this account and/or allow me to re-register it." -OR- "wikiquote:User:Markie is me. Please unblock it."
- wikiquote:User:Iddo99 posts to wikiquote:WQ:AN: "The current wikinews:User:Iddo999 is not me. Please disable this account and/or allow me to re-register it." -OR- "wikinews:User:Iddo999 is me. Please unblock it."
  NOTE: I don't recommend links in this message, because they can be spoofed. Keep it simple.
Each real sysop checks the foreign project's Special:Listadmins to find the other's confirmation post.
- q:User:Iddo99 finds "Markie" in Wikinews's listadmins, clicks on his userpage link, then finds his confirmation post in user contributions.
- n:User:Markie finds "Iddo999" in Wikiquote's listadmins, clicks on his userpage link, then finds his confirmation post in user contributions.
  NOTE: Again, don't trust my links here. Enter "Special:Listadmins" in the Search box and follow the wiki-generated links.
Each sysop now knows whether or not the foreign username is valid, based on the other's posted confirmation message. Each can make the block permament, reverse it, or refer it to a project bureaucrat for reassignment to the established Wikian of that name.

I would recommend not attempting to communicate with the other project, except to post a single request for such a confirmation if they haven't already noticed the impersonation. (Since this vandalism requires the participation of at least one sysop from each project, this is usually not necessary.) Once the accounts are temporarily blocked, the first thing one should check is the user contributions of the real sysop on the other project to look for the confirmation message on some page. The vandal will do his best to sow confusion by making identity-request posts, so the best action is to ignore anything posted to your home project until you see an identity confirmation message on the foreign project.

Of course, the best way to avoid the entire problem is for every sysop on Wikiquote and Wikinews to register their home project username on the other project, even if they never plan to use it. If done with a simultaneous edit to one's user or user talk page that indicates you are establishing a foreign-project account, this will allow that other project to trust you are not a vandal doing this. Until we have unified login, this is perhaps the most effective way to avoid these attacks.

By the way, please note that the vandal will be reading this message. (He has quoted me in at least two attacks to attempt to make them sound more legitimate.) If you don't think this will affect you, understand that he will surely be attacking another set of sysops in the near future. Don't leave yourself vulnerable to this impersonation. Cross-register your usernames. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as you see from the above, cross-registering your usernames (even if you never use them) will make life easier for everyone! If we had done so, we wouldn't have wasted a lot of Jeff's life by making him color code a chart for us on cross-wiki actions. :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always see who has your username registered across all the Wikimedia wikis by using this tool. I encourage EVERYBODY (regular users and admins alike) to see if their username is being used by someone other than themselves. Zachary ^talk 05:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been impersonated

There's now an account in my name on WikiNews.

21:17, 5 May 2007 Poetlister (Talk | contribs) New user

Can it be blocked please?--Poetlister 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they have been aware of your request, but anyway it was blocked as follows;

23:29, 6 May 2007 FellowWikiNews (Talk | contribs) blocked "Poetlister (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (Abusing multiple accounts)

We are better to have a dedicated place for exchanging on going cross-wiki vandalisms, like as noticeboard? --Aphaia 10:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support and help if I could --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry?

I just welcomed two new users: User:Chinolayne and User:J Pittman, created in the last few minutes. They both started by editing List of films. Coincidence?--Poetlister 22:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. Chinolayne (talk · contributions) has no edit but List of films. J Pittman (talk · contributions) has several edits besides that, even his or her edits are not so much good, at least on an existing film[4]. It could be coincidence, or not.

According to Single-user login conflict search, both usernames are found only on English Wikiquote. Chinolayne J Pittman.

If you find a bad scant, it may be a good reason to ask a steward to perform CU. --Aphaia 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now, how about? from Special:Logs/newuser

18:26 (cur; last) . . SA3 (Talk | contribs | block) (New user)

18:26 (cur; last) . . SA2 (Talk | contribs | block) (New user)

18:26 (cur; last) . . SA1 (Talk | contribs | block) (New user)

While we don't forbidden multiple accounts per se, but it doesn't seem coincidence/on a good faith. --Aphaia 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson wikiquote page

This was supposed to be unblocked on May 6th, 2007. It is still blocked. Just thought you should know.

Thanks. The protection was already expired. I removed the tag. --Aphaia 18:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Use of Wikiquote for School Projects

Hello, my account (Mrs. Herntaq) was recently blocked for "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages: vandal;" however, I'm not sure what I really did wrong. My only edits so far were to welcome my students, who for a class poroject are contributing to open-source knowledege databases (our class choose Wikiquote, folowling the recommendation of one of my students). Getting back to the question, is this premissible in the rules of Wikiquote? The student who made the sugesstion assured me it was. If not, I'm happy to leave, it would just be a shame if my students had lied to me about this. I thank you for your anticipated reply. 208.53.158.92 18:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (Normal account "Mrs. Herntaq"), blocked so using alternate computer[reply]

Well, reviewing the activity of Mrs. Herntaq (talk · contributions) and accounts related to it, namely consecutively numbered accounts SA1 (talk · contributions) through SA11, I'd have to say you had the incredibly bad luck to have had only one active student who happens to be a well-known vandal here. Or else you are that vandal and are merely posing as a teacher in another tired variation of the old multiple-user vandalism scheme. Given that most teachers know how to spell words like "permissable" and "following", I'd lean toward the latter interpretation, as Aphaia suggests below. Oh, and thanks for letting us know about your vandalism below using a different IP address (208.53.158.92) in the same Chicago network IP pool. Usually you create another user to do this, but it was a little more obvious this time. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Happenings

Have a look at Special:Logs/newuser it seems as if an automated system is creating accounts for vandalisim use. Some of the accounts (SA1 and SA2) have already started a automated "Wazz" attack. We need to have a b'crat preform a meta check-user to get to the source of these unrelentless attacks. 208.53.138.102 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Also note User:Vagish (claiming to be Wikipedia User Vagish) was created during the Wazz attack. It seems as if we have another round of Wazz cross project trolling on out hands just waiting to happen. 208.53.138.102 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report, I would have been better to act more boldly. 208.53.158.92 was actually Wazz, I think now. I put one month blocking on this IP address.

Since on English Wikiquote Vagish page says s/he is now offline, so I suspect the account here would an impostor. I therefore blocked it until Vagish confirms this account, preventing further disruption, if any. --Aphaia 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The account was confirmed by w:user:Vagish. --Aphaia 09:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two investigations

copied from m:Requests for CheckUser information

En Wikiquote part 2

note to checkusers: contact Pathoschild for archived data.

Willy on Wheels or its follower attacked ENWQ recently and we changed the move setting from [user] to [autoconfirmed]. It might be dormant accounts, so I request for checkuser to detect those possible vandal accounts. Would you please to perform CU on user:Auburn Pilot, user:Jesus the Tank Engine and User:Pene Naranjo, and let us know accounts created from the same IP addresses, if appropriate? (Hmmm, we need a local page for "long-term vandals"?) --Aphaia 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user operates from a pool of dynamic IP addresses assigned to Virgin Media, with each account on a different address. There is no way to block the user without the possibility of significant collateral damage, given the wide ranges involved. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

En Wikiquote

note to checkusers: contact Pathoschild for archived data.

There has just been a recent vandal attack there (the user appears to be a punctuation mark [5]). Reading the Admin board there [6] it looks like this has happened before. I'd like to see CU run to see if there is any connection and (if appropriate) the IP blocked for a period. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From me too I request for checkuser on the requested account as well a series of Wazz accounts, User:SA1 to User:SA11, and User:Mrs. Herntaq. As for discussion, WQ:AN#Question Regarding Use of Wikiquote for School Projects might be more relevant for this vandal whom we called "Wazz". For your information, the account Vagish is confirmed by en:user:Vagish as his or her own, so it was just coincidence. --Aphaia 16:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vagish was not related, but the following users are: group A{%DB%9D (encoded), Gartermac, Mrs. Herntaq, SA1, SA2, SA3, SA4, SA5, WQAS1, WQAS2, WQAS3, WQAS4), group B{SA6, SA7, SA8, SA9, SA10, SA11, WQAA1, WQAA2). Versioning and whois indicates that the users most likely operated from a computer lab behind a dynamic proxy assigned to Carbon Lehigh Intermediate school Unit 21 (209.18.48.0/20). group A edited from various IP addresses assigned to the school, while group B seems to have used a web proxy installed on ptrhosting.com (72.232.50.146). Versioning indicates a probability that multiple persons were involved, probably students in a computer lab. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:39:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reactions

According to the result, I put two blocks

For 72.232.50.146 (talk · contributions), one year. Only anon, preventing account creation for now. This setting could be later changed.
For 209.18.48.0/20, one day, since it is a ranged block (see WQ:BP). Both accounts and anons are blocked, account creation is prevented.

Your comments will be very appreciated. --Aphaia 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first IP - fine (IMO) and it has been trouble on another Wiki before (late March). The other one - you now have a marker, if it is checked again the history will build but hard to deal with "spread" vandalism like that --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the block. Cbrown1023 talk 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also the IP address below is being blocked for a month:

208.53.158.92 (talk · contributions), as JeffQ noted, it was apparently used by Wazz. --Aphaia 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs review/block?

User:Dapledasfarm and associated IP? Sorry - in a rush! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a permanent block on the account, because it was plainly created merely for vandalism and abuse. ~ Kalki 09:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - an IP edited the same page I marked for deletion - almost certainly the underlying IP of the user. Could be worth a "memo" block for future reference --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report two block

Just after a mess created by Wazz, two familiar username appeared on our newuser log, and under the suspicion of impostors, I blocked two accounts (Vagish and Tango).

Enwp user:Vagish confirmed it as his or her legitimate account on English Wikipedia, so I unblocked it (it was really a coincidence). On the other hand, User:Tango was taken by a third party according to w:user:Tango. Once I asked Tango to let us know please, if he would like to usurp it, but this is a common name so it could be also coincidence.

It is obvious if SUL is introduced, en:user:Tango will take this account thanks to his huge contributions to English Wikipedia, and I have no other user known with this user name on other projects. But there is a possibility this account was taken on a good faith (note: we haven't perform CU about recent impostors), I would like to hear your opinions how we should do. --Aphaia 09:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser rights

moved back to WQ:AN

Christianity

Heads up really - this page has been vandalised twice today over a couple of hours by the same IP (User talk:71.188.1.236 & warned). They appear to be blanking the same section each time. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notices, I s'protected page for a day. --Aphaia 18:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block recommendations

Hi - can I recommend a couple of IP blocks please - firstly 198.87.3.70 (talk · contributions) is an open proxy and should be blocked for however long your practice here is. Secondly 64.27.13.93 (talk · contributions) is an exploited IP and has been blocked on 4 other Wikis over the past hour or so for three months. This information is derived from a number of sources but relates to cross wiki vandalism. I'll happily supply more information if anyone likes to contact me. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked! :) Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - User:66.160.172.234 is the next one! Blocked on en wp indefinitely as a "blocked proxy". Now blocked anywhere I can for 2 years, probably source of recent vandals accounts/exploits. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for six months. --Aphaia 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit to MediaWiki:Common.js

  mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
    "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Button_wikipedia.png",
    "speedTip": "Insert a link to Wikipedia",
    "tagOpen": "[[w:",
    "tagClose": "]]",
    "sampleText": "Insert Wikipedia pagename"};
}

to

  mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
    "imageFile": "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Button_wikipedia.png",
    "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)[reply]

Done. Cbrown1023 talk 17:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

General

Checkuser rights

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another block recommendaion

Based on vandalism over a number of Wikis and uploading of inappropriate material on Commons User:88.214.193.26 has been blocked for a minimum of 3 months on 4 other Wikis today. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsure of policy here

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)[reply]

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 @Wikiquote44.com 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 "Wikiquote44.com". If someone notices this user continue to edit, please consider to place a permanent block. --Aphaia 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And another one!

User:87.98.218.203 - vandal account source & open proxy according to en Wikipedia, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requiring attention?

User:H*Bad12345 may be worth a look --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

207.210.105.194

207.210.105.194 (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)[reply]

Muckracking vandal

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)[reply]

Thanks, for the help. I had been away from my computer a bit longer than normal today. ~ Kalki 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AWB access

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

Done. Cbrown1023 talk 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sceptre 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attention required

User:Rulliblehaxxer - going offline now - sorry --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rani Mukerji

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)[reply]

Ursurpation

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Public user account

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ilikepie4

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

—This unsigned comment is by AFUSCO (talk • contribs) .

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)[reply]

Renaming

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

QOTD - the perils of procrastination...

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)[reply]

Appeal for calm and patience

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)[reply]

ilikepie6

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other interesting points might be:

Why AFUSCO has been stick to this project, without not factual contributions, despites of his user page statement?
And how can Ilikepie* find such less standing user is active on a particular website? --Aphaia 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswiki vandalism IP

user:209.190.7.50 - 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)[reply]

ilikepie7

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 (talk • contribs) 8 June 2007, 20:47:44 (UTC)

User:84.45.219.185

I blocked 84.45.219.185 (talk · contributions), an IP address assigned to a certain school, since

Edits from this IP address to this project are not completely justified (anon vote, spamming)
On several projects it has been used for vandalism. See w:User_talk:84.45.219.185, Commons:User_talk:84.45.219.185 for example.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this block should be extended. Indefinitely blocked on en Wp [7]. I have blocked for a year on Books & Commons --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Office note

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Latest vandal

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)[reply]

Info emailed to Jeff for consideration --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd appreciate admin review of my actions when someone is on line - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Open proxies

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)[reply]

I have now blocked these four IPs for the period of a year. ~ Kalki 09:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sockpuppet Master and Vandal

My fellow contributor Jeffq has recently pointed out to me that this would be the best place to bring up this issue. I would like to point out that this Wiki-star is a major sockpuppet master and vandalizer and has many other names on wikipedia and wikiquote alike. He was banned simultaneously on wikipedia numerous and countless times for trying to evade blocks and constantly vandalize pages with pornographic material, flamatory remarks to other members, and many other excessively moronic curses. This vandal is doing the same gibberish here on wikiquote right now. More of his currently banned sockpuppets include H*Bad12345, Taracka, YogaKing34, Frieza-Bomber, Taracka #2, General Cui, Count Raznagul, Krinzad, Myer Link, 63.215.29.129, 24.3.28.181, Wiki-star #1, Wiki-star #2, 209.2.4.94, and 207.210.105.194. Right now, At this time, I know of two of his sockpuppets that still haven't been banned yet, along with the other bunch of names that have been permanently banned. Two of his currently used sockpuppets are Frieza, and Master Batour. The administrators are being very careless at this time for not banning the rest of his sockpuppets along with banning his numerous ip's. I had to bring this forward in light of his continued vandalism of numerous pages, but the fact that he keeps vandalizing my user page as well as the user pages of many other members. He is also performing sockpuppetry in order to create numerous responses. For further evidence, anyone can do a simple ip check. For one, this vandal is very well known all over wikipedia for creating this much disruption. There's absolutely no reason to allow him to continue this behavior here. Thank you for your time, my fellow contributors and friends. - Zarbon 13:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked User:Frieza as the edits of that account, in conjunction with other accounts, clearly indicated it was intended primarily for vandalism or trolling. Most of the names you list are as yet irrelevant here, as they have no accounts registered. The account "Master Batour" has been used to make a couple edits which clearly indicate a likelihood for abuse, but I know of no such account elsewhere, and as yet nothing so severe here as to warrant blocking. On this project we have to primarily be concerned with such things as actually occur here, and not automatically react to things that have happened or might have happened elsewhere. We can sometimes use such indications to hasten our decisions, but we cannot let them become our primary criteria. If that were so, as I pointed out to you on your talk page, based upon your being indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia, you would already now be blocked here as well. ~ Kalki 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget that my being blocked was because of my continued effort to get rid of this same vandal. I tried my best to stop his incessant vandalism. I will be battling against my block so I may resume my work on wikipedia as well, but they told me to wait six months, so that's what I'm going to do. I will wait for the time to pass and I will bring up my problem once more with the administrators there, and hopefully, they will unblock me then. However, I'm not going to go and create fifty sock puppets and post garbage all over the pages. That's the major difference between me and him, among a slew of other differences. If you run an ip check, you'd be more than likely to see that Master Batour has the same ip as Frieza - Zarbon 16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon, you may not realize this, but "IP checks" (i.e., CheckUser requests) cannot be done by ordinary administrators, and are so sensitive in the Wikimedia community that only a very tiny number of extremely trusted admins are given this ability. Wikiquote currently has no one who can do this, and we are very parsimonious about asking cross-project stewards to do this for us. In general, it is usually simpler and less privacy-invading to simply block disruptive editors based solely on their editing activity. This works quite well in 95% of vandalism/disruption situations. (We reserve CheckUser requests for more sophisticated vandals who attempt cross-project impersonations and other subtler harm, in which we feel the danger to the project outweighs the violence we do to our essential principle of zealously protecting the privacy of our editors. Even then, we must be careful only to confirm or deny sockpuppet connections and the like, and to avoid giving out any information that isn't absolutely essential in stopping such project harm.)

As Kalki has already pointed out at least twice to you, your own edits have placed you into the category of disruptive editor, which seems to be why you were blocked at Wikipedia. Please learn from that experience and from our repeated advice to remain calm and stop encourage wiki-trolls by getting so worked up over these matters. If someone harrasses you on your talk page, either revert their edits or just ignore their posts. You're much more likely to get rid of a harrasser by reverting five, six, or even ten edits in a row without comment, because such childishness becomes boring when it doesn't get any interesting reaction. Most of Wikimedia vandalism is handled this way. (See w:Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and note that even blocking is unnecessary to stop most harrassers, who are typically just bored students.) Responding to it only makes it fun for the vandal, which pretty much guarantees continued harrassment. Consider that right now, out of thousands of registered editors, you are the only person on Wikiquote who seems to have been consistently and repeatedly harrassed. I would suggest this is because you are the only person who hasn't been able to stick to the standard revert-and-ignore practice of experienced wikians. I would also point out that your use of this tactic against 207.210.105.194 (talk · contributions) had exactly the expected, desired effect. I don't know how else to make this point to you. Try this exclusively for a few weeks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice is very good. However, the reason why I was banned myself numerous and countless times on wikipedia was because of the 3RR rule, which I kept breaking just to revert this same vandal's idiocy. I mean, I really really want to make the pages excellent, and this person is purposely doing everything to ruin them. He even goes as far as to say that the quotations are false or inaccurate. I don't want to give him firepower for this stupidity, but my patience is running thin because he has been doing this for over two years now and he just doesn't quit. When I point out to you that Master Batour is another of his sockpuppets, you're going to have to trust me. I am appalled to hear that wikiquote currently has no ip check maneuver. This is rather astonishing. I will continue to try my best to revert all this sockpuppeteers vandalisms, but wouldn't it be easier to simply block all his names instead of allowing him to continue these vandalisms? And about wikipedia, I am going to wait the amount of time suggested to me until I bring up a request for an unblock, which an admin has requested I do when the time is right. Thanks for your concern and I do appreciate your continued effort to discuss this with me Jeffq. - Zarbon 00:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry

I have deleted Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Dragon Ball Z as a bad-faith nomination for the following reasons:

Nominator Sk8terhata failed to follow the procedure outlined under WQ:VFD#The process, even after being told twice to complete it and to ask if s/he had any questions.
Sk8terhata has been engaged in the multiple-page fighting over anime articles that have gotten Zarbon blocked, making an uninformed, ill-formatted VfD nomination suspicious.
Sk8terhata further advised Dragon Ball Z editors, in the edit summary restoring the {{vfd-new}} tag (that had been removed apparently as an incomplete nomination), that "Zarbon was blocked and Jeffq said we can vote now", which misrepresents what I said to him/her at User talk:Sk8terhata#VfD nominations.
After I pointed out that the nomination process was still incomplete, Sk8terhata, who like Zarbon has a tendency to post several times in rapid succession, has yet to respond to my insistence about either finishing the nomination or asking for help.

I could have completed the process myself, of course — Step III is very easy to do — but I am increasingly concerned about the drain of resources these apparently new editors are causing while refusing to read, let alone follow, basic wiki guidelines. I would like other sysops to review my actions and consider whether the deleted discussion should instead be restored and fixed (i.e., treated as a good-faith nomination). I feel I may have been too busy with the incessant user postings to deal properly with the larger issue. I would take no offense at a reversal of this deletion, and if I erred, please advise me so. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite blocking Zarbon for repeated offenses, I now believe he is correct that there is considerable sockpuppetry going on here. I would like to assemble a list of anime editors who have been participating in these arguments and submit a request for a CheckUser on the whole set, so that we can determine which group or groups of them are truly sockpuppets. I would include usernames we have already blocked, so that we can clear the air on this issue. Opinions? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the VfD rejection and checkuser request sound okay with me. I have refrained from getting more involved than neccesary in most of these melodramatic disputes over matters of trivial interest to me. ~ Kalki 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sounds reasonable to me. Zarbon might be correct there are sockpuppets around those subjects, while I am completely persuaded with all of his claims. And considering that a heated argument around those articles seems to be hard to cease, CU relevant accounts might be a way to make a progress to let us make an argument based on facts, not assumptions. --Aphaia 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a list of everyone involved, if that is what it takes. i have been looking it up and it began since like april, when this all "sock" "puppetry" started. and i read civility in case you people wanted to know. Want my help? Sk8terhata 19:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have Zarbon's list. I would welcome your list as well, Sk8terhata. Be sure to include any sockpuppets you may be operating, here or on Wikipedia, if you wish to be taken seriously. (I have already found at least one suspicious WP username that I intend to have checked.) The more I dig into this, the less I believe there are any innocent parties in this edit war. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a CheckUser request performed by m:User:Drini ([8]) at the request of Simple Wikipedia users, for yet another set of usernames largely identical to the ones cited here and on en:Wikipedia, I believe we know have just cause to indefinitely block all participants in these anime edit wars, except for Poetic Decay and the regularly-editing Wikiquotians who have tried to intervene. The SE CheckUser request indicates that all of the principles — from both sides of the conflict — have been editing from the same IP. Considering how substantive and repetitive this activity has been across projects, I believe this is a new established pattern of disruptive editing that justifies sockpuppet blocking when similarly-editing new users arrive. Many thanks to Herby for spotting the existing CheckUser request. (You saved me some ponderous data collection!) For reference, here are related Wikipedia pages showing just how pervasive this problem has been:

I've already blocked Sk8terhata (talk · contributions), Recoome (talk · contributions), and new user General Cui (talk · contributions) based on this analysis and collected evidence at WP. I have also indefinitely re-blocked Zarbon (talk · contributions) (who had just asserted to me in a private email that "I don't create sockpuppets to continue working on the pages", despite evidence to the contrary on WP). Any remaining sockpuppets should be blocked as they arise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with Jeff in full. However - for everyone's satisfaction I would suggest a request for CU at Meta. That way there will be a degree of certainty and equally it is always possible that puppets that have not been spotted may be found (& you still need two people for these rights on this wiki!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure that all were blocked right, yeah. So... will there still be a Checkuser? If yes, count me in it so that I may be excluded. Brendan Filone 15:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a CheckUser request on this situation at ~~m:Requests for CheckUser information#English Wikiquote (anime sockpuppets)~~ m:RfCU#Anime sockpuppets @ enwikiquote. I have also blocked Brendan Filone for 2 weeks as a suspected sockpuppet, after a Zarbon-like arrogation of sysop actions (replacing the talk pages of the recently blocked participants with block notices with my signature on them). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I updated the CheckUser request link to reflect its current heading. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the latest blocking to User:NoUcan't as self-claiming sockpuppet of Zarbon (cf. diff). --Aphaia 13:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for their edit, see also Talk:Dragon Ball GT. --Aphaia 05:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more more almost painfully obvious sockpuppets would be: User:BJ Blazkowicz (edit), User:Pickle89 (edit), and User:Remove-All-Content (pay attention to the articles he blanks). Remove-All-Content has already been indef blocked, and if you already have the other users added to the list of potential sockpuppets on MediaWiki, ignore what I said. // DecaimientoPoético 21:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked BJ Blazkowicz indefinitely as a Zarbon sockpuppet, and Pickle89 for 1 month as a suspected sockpuppet and prank editor. I have also added their names to the CU request. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As many have no doubt noticed already, we've had the CheckUser results from Meta for a couple of days now. I have been putting together my own report that takes that data, incorporates some other information, and summarizes the situation and the actions to be taken. Pending only one final small question, I expect to file my report here later today, and to take the actions it suggests. Sorry for the delay, but I want to make sure we treat everyone involved in this situation appropriately. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Here are the results from meta:RfCU#Anime sockpuppets @ enwikiquote, rearranged and incorporating information from other sources to highlight important points. (Skip to the "Actions" section for the current state of all the user accounts.)

Wiki-star (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Wiki-star has edited from two IP addresses using the following sockpuppets:

66.229.120.240: Wiki-star; Andymack1986; BJ Blazkowicz; Brendan Filone; Dodoria; Frieza; Frieza-Bomber; General Cui; Link; Lord Frieza; Master Batour; NoUcan't; Pickle89; Prince Zarbon; Remove-All-Content; Sk8terhata; Taracka; Uglyguy2006; YogaKing34
70.46.70.11: Wiki-star; A Link to the Past; Chickensword; Link; SlavicZarbon; Sweetness32
- NOTE: These IPs were communicated to me privately, not in the public report, but as they are "data […] released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks" of an established vandal/disrupter, per m:CheckUser policy, and will show up in the block log, I felt they should be identified here.

IDENTITYCONFIRM (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

This clear vandal, that was not part of my original request, is behind the following sockpuppets:

24.115.238.8: IDENTITYCONFIRM; Erpnaternac; Markie; Nanobug Locked Out!; Staying Anon; Ufundoa; news:User:MyName

Cspurrier informed me that this username and vandal is known to other projects for creating sleeper usernames with modest good-faith editing, then manufacturing conflicts with many sockpuppets, which fits the situation here exactly, and is similar to what we've seen before (although not usually associated with a specific subject area, like anime).

The following users/IPs in the request were determined with high probability also to be this cross-project vandal:

Zarbon (talk · contributions) (aka 72.227.129.181 (talk · contributions); see 4 March block and subsequent IP edit): many apparent good-faith edits preceding the spate of edit-warring and attacks; repeated refusal to stay cool or follow WQ policies and advice from sysops
24.215.185.81 (talk · contributions): reverted or tweaked a few Zarbon edits
NicAgent (talk · contributions): very short-term attack page creator
Rulliblehaxxer (talk · contributions): very short-term serial bad-faith VfD nominator

Note that each of these identities stayed within character while editing. If not for the CheckUser results, the only thing that would have tied them together would've been the timing and selection of pages to edit, which is hard to distinguish from people merely picking targets from Recent Changes (i.e., coincidence).

The following users from the list are only weakly tied to IDENTITYCONFIRM, and should be evaluated solely on their contributions:

Poetic Decay (talk · contributions): included as part of anime edit-warring, but not suspected of sockpuppetry; established valuable contributor
H*bad (talk · contributions): registered 7 minutes after 67.173.60.67 (talk · contributions) (a 12-minute vandal) started adding nonsense to apparently random articles not recently edited, then proceeded to revert the nonsense. Posted a warning to IP talk, vandal stopped, H*bad created his user page. 3 days later, began welcoming new users and joined the anime-editing conflict by supporting Zarbon, who then complained about him being a Wiki-star sockpuppet. Demonstrated non-newbie knowledge of wikis (protected articles, {{delete}}, {{test}}, redirection, CheckUser IP checking), although not necessarily the practices associated with them. But, his edits have been largely reasonable, and his reactions not at all out of line with a new-to-project editor. I believe that this is either an innocent editor caught up in bad timing, or a very subtle sockpuppet. In the absence of clearer evidence, I prefer to assume good faith and leave this user unblocked.
H*Bad12345 (talk · contributions): attacker/vandal; blocked purely on his own edits
Klatsh (talk · contributions): created inadequately sourced, possibly vanity article Jeff Davidson w/ misleading WP link, but no clear connection to disrupters
Family Guy IP editor: 71.176.195.122 (talk · contributions), 71.176.197.33 (talk · contributions), 71.176.199.13 (talk · contributions), 71.176.203.106 (talk · contributions), 71.176.206.154 (talk · contributions), 71.176.206.212 (talk · contributions), 96.228.1.2 (talk · contributions)
- Made apparent prank changes to FG articles by substituting anime character names for FG names, along with some reasonable edits and more obvious vandalism. I say "apparent" because if Family Guy is anything like The Simpsons and other modern non-anime, prime-time cartoons, it's not unlikely that they may feature cameos of characters from other works, so it's very difficult for non-fans to detect actual vandalism. (It would be much easier if these articles weren't likely copyvios, as there would be far fewer quotes which would be much less likely to feature guest characters.) Anyway, I had blocked them all for 1 week, and no one in this range seems to have returned to editing in the 11 days since the blocks came off. I suspect that this is a different vandal, and that given the two-month editing period, we will eventually see him again.
168.216.75.64 (talk · contributions), 168.216.112.15 (talk · contributions)
- These IPs made edits to Dragon Ball Z that were stylistically very similar (and in one case identical) to the FG vandal edits, making it likely that they are the same person. (This Family Guy→Dragon Ball Z connection was perhaps the main reason these IPs were tied to the overall anime-editing issue.) After the CU results, this suggests they are not the subject vandals, but need to be watched for their own form of vandalism.

Many of the above weakly-connected editors were added to the list because of Zarbon's complaints, who we've now established as an unrepentent disrupter. Even within the character of an overreacting but otherwise good-faith editor, Zarbon seemed to complain about any non-sysop who started a conversation with him or edited an article he was watching, to the point of sockpuppet paranoia. Some of these editors proved their bad intent, but others were far more reasonable than most new editors. It's important that we disassociate them from the Zarbon-related conflict without more evidence.

Recoome (talk · contributions)

Recoome has also edited under the following IPs:

219.89.161.229 (talk · contributions); 219.89.167.99 (talk · contributions); 219.89.171.159 (talk · contributions); 219.89.173.8 (talk · contributions); 219.89.175.215 (talk · contributions)

This username, which had been blocked on WP for being a Zarbon sockpuppet, participated here in the anime edit-warring, evaded username and IP blocks by using new IPs, and raised alerts about Wiki-star much like Zarbon. I blocked him and his IPs as obvious Zarbon sockpuppets. But the CheckUser results indicate no tie to the Zarbon IP range (or any other in the overall conflict), and taken alone, his edits seem only to be those of a concerned anime editor opposed to Zarbon and Wiki-star who felt wrongly accused. Furthermore, he has been editing here since November 2006, well before any of the Zarbon/Wiki-star activity started. While it is possible this is a very subtle sockpuppet, it seems more likely to me that Recoome is a good-faith editor who has merely been caught up here (and perhaps on Wikipedia, too) in a battle with others' sockpuppets.

Finally, 80.212.124.60 (talk · contributions), who was also included as part of the anime edit-warring but not suspected of sockpuppetry, has no discernable connection to any of the above parties.

Actions and conclusions

Based on the above analysis, I have taken the following actions:

Verfied that all Wiki-star and IDENTITYCONFIRM sockpuppets (including Zarbon) are permanently blocked, and that the IPs behind them are all blocked for 1 month, in accordance with Wikiquote:Blocking policy.
Verified that all other identified vandal usernames listed here but not tied to the main sockpuppets remain permanently blocked.
Taken no new action on the Family Guy IPs, but ask that the community keep an eye on them for possible future abuse.
Released the remaining block on Recoome, the only user not clearly tied to the above offenders who was still blocked. All other unassociated usernames had no blocks.

I would like to note that, when reviewing all the usernames, only Recoome had a block that needed removing. Two usernames had temporary blocks that I made permanent (meaning we had erred on the side of good-faith assumptions), and no usernames besides Recoome had remained blocked during the investigation. One IP was permanently blocked (going beyond our block policy) but is now blocked for 1 more month.

Frankly, I feel that the community did pretty well even before we had the CU results, but the CheckUser allowed us to confirm our actions were appropriate. Without CU, too much of sysop blocking is based on circumstantial evidence, and users can find themselves blocked for lesser offenses merely because they were committed during a vandalism storm in which their edits merely looked suspicious.

I would also note that had we had local CheckUsers before this situation started, it probably wouldn't have gone beyond half a dozen sockpuppets before we'd contained it. Instead, much of the sysop staff spent the past several weeks fighting a bunch of fires centered around a vandal, a disrupter, and an irate contributor. Whomever we might decide to trust with CheckUser rights, we clearly need to get some local checkusers. If we aren't happy enough as a community with the current CU nominees, we can nominate other trusted users (we have plenty!), but let's please take swift action on enabling this anti-vandalism tool. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jeff, for your thoughtful summary. I support your actions as conclusions. As for Racoome, we could consider the differences of locations, Zarbon's IP addresses are assigned to comcast, based in CA, USA. While Racoome's ones are assigned to a New Zealand ISP. Unless the latter ones are open proxies or zombie machines, those IP addresses could hardly be handled by a same person.

As for 1 month blocking ... as Herby and Cbrown1023 once suggested, we could modify the rule in this point. I am happy to keep one month for ordinary blocking for anons as maximum, but we could make it longer for IP addresses which are known only used for vandalism? For example ... 6 months? I don't think it appropriate to perform so at this moment, but it could be our further consideration. --Aphaia 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of work done here Jeff & the community owe you thanks. I agree with what you have done & Aphaia's thoughts. For what it is worth I am still dealing with a not dissimilar situation on Commons. The users are blocked but I have blocked the underlying IPs (no valid edits) for one month in the hope that they get bored and play somewhere else. Without any other information a one month block on an IP seems enough to me. Obviously if there were further vandalism or Open proxy, trojaned machine issues then I would be prepared to block for up to two years. On en Books blocks are very rarely placed for any longer than that. Again thanks Jeff --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement as well. This sort of reasoned, thorough analysis and work, coupled with careful consideration of the consequences, is why I think Jeff Q will make an excellent CU here. I do think that a longer block might be in order though. Disallowing anon edits, and disallowing account creation from that IP, but not disallowing edits while logged in, is a common approach on en, where there is a mechanism (the unblock-en-l mailing list) to request account creation. If the IP were blocked with a note that account creation could be requested, would that make a longer block less likely to cause lasting collateral damage to innocent new users on that IP? I think Aphaia is on the right track suggesting 6 months in extraordinary cases. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against longer IP blocks in situations where we're fairly sure we won't cause collateral harm, but I'd prefer two steps before that:

We amend our blocking policy to reflect this. Right now, it's still largely based on old WP practices, which assume large numbers of editors and syops available to keep an eye on things, making limited IP blocks practical. (Our policy updates are usually very slow because there's so much to do here and so few participants.)
We have a clear and practical means for such account creation requests. We might provide this through WQ:AN, or through the "Contact us" email (info-en@wikiquote.org), although the latter really needs more community support. (Right now, I think Aphaia is our only OTRS rep, and after reviewing the docs on OTRS, I suspect it'll take me a few weeks before I feel I'm ready to join.) Whatever the way, it should be made clear in whatever error message someone gets when the account creation is blocked.

~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requested

I request a checkuser be used on all users whom changed the first tagline on the Bleach page. I know that the edits these users are making are very small, and may seem even smaller to those unfamiliar with the series itself, but several users have all made the same exact edit ever since User:Wiki-star — a somewhat infamous vandal known for all his sockpuppets on Wikipedia — started changing it. They all seem to have a similar writing style as well. The users I request be checked are:

Note that User:Taracka and User:Sk8terhata have not taken part in the Bleach dispute, but Taracka and Wiki-star have been confirmed to be the same person on Wikipedia. // DecaimientoPoético 17:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have local CheckUser-enabled editors here. I filed an CheckUser request for these and other usernames at m:Requests for CheckUser information/Archives/2007/01#Anime sockpuppets @ enwikiquote on 21 June. I am still hoping for a timely response to this request. We are discussing the overall situation above at WQ:AN#Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry"Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on meta archived, The link to meta is fixed for reference convenience. --Aphaia 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, given results on meta, JeffQ made a detailed report on this page and blocked problematic accounts. --Aphaia 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Semi-protection: Family Guy/Season 3

This page has been vandalized repeatedly by an unknown user (or users) with different IP addresses. Specifically, the vandal(s) are changing the quotes for "Peter Griffin: Husband, Father...Brother?" and "A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas" by changing the names and/or the dialogue. Since the vandal(s) seems to use different IP addresses, I request that the entire page be placed under semi-protection so only registered users can edit it, in hopes of identifying the vandal(s) or deterring future vandalism. Goopnzaopleopz9 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, I am reluctant. Among edits since June 22, only edits from 96.228.1.2 were sorts you mentioned, and other anon edits seems me good. Now Jeff Q blocked 96.228.1.2 for one week, I'd rather to wait to see what happens next. Please note, if other sysops who are fairly active supports your idea, I won't oppose you. --Aphaia 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found at least seven IPs making anime-related prank edits to this article (as well as one prank that wasn't anime-related), and have blocked them all temporarily in an attempt to slow down not only this problem but also see if it helps slow down our anime-sockpuppetry problem, which may be connected. If problems continue, we may have do as Goopnzaopleopz9's requests. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. I concur with you, Jeff. --Aphaia 02:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1-week IP blocks seemed to have largely stopped the edit warring and other mischief. All I'm waiting for now is a resolution of the CheckUser so we can make sure we don't have anyone blocked who isn't actively violating policies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUsers

We have had a large number of CheckUser requests on Meta from Wikiquote lately. I suggest we nominate some local CheckUsers ourselves. We need two candidates with 25 supports each, but these supports can be gotten within many months, there is no time limit. Cbrown1023 talk 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally nominate Kalki and Apahia, as they're 'crats already. Will ^{talk) 16:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally, was thinking of Jeffq and either Aphaia or Kalki, but didn't want to put a recommendation in my initial post. I would also hope that at least one of our checkusers were available on IRC, for requests by users and help from more experienced CUs. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me - I like a balance - 1 'crat, 1 admin. And I have tried quite hard twice to get the CU checks done. I've been hanging around waiting for some "steward action" today but nothing. I'm going to try harder Friday (next available time for me). But yes this community should have CUs even if it takes a while. I have offered to both explain a bit and nom two people but I think Aphaia is tied up at present with elections (Jeff would be a good candidate IMO) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the balance. On Commons, there is even a CU without admin rights. Cbrown1023 talk 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I said before, this project does need local check users... I'd certainly support those candidates. I would like to point out that having a CU that has more than just WQ access is helpful, as often there is action on Meta, Commons, En, or elsewhere but Jeffq, Aphaia, or Kalki all sound good to me (why not nom all 3?). ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we need reliable editors with CheckUser capabilities here, but I am not interested in acquiring that ability myself, for several reasons. Among them is the fact that In the months ahead there is a strong likelihood that I will often not be available most of the day, and sometimes even several days at a time. I have indicated this privately already, but feel I should now openly put an end to any consideration of myself as a candidate for CheckUser abilities. ~ Kalki 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki, very understandable and it is always good to be upfront! The requirement for (at least) two CUs is so that they can monitor and audit each other, not that they have to precisely split the work 50/50... one could monitor for the most part and the other do the work for the most part. What about Aphaia and Jeffq with Aphaia mostly in a monitor mode until and unless she has more time? Or, dare I say it, what about considering Herby. Yes, he's a new admin but he has CU in other places and he's been heavily involved in getting to the bottom of this stuff. Also, while it is true that Commons has a non admin CU at present, that wasn't on purpose, it just came out that way. I personally feel that it is usually a good thing to be an admin where you hold CU so that you can block right away if it's urgent. But a non admin CU is better than none! Hope those thoughts are helpful. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have Herby as CU, he will be an admin-CU, not non admin <g> --Aphaia 00:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nod. However, I was referring to Gmaxwell on Commons, who gave up his adminship but retained his CUness ... Herby and I have been doing most of the visible stuff recently but when we go into the logs we often see he's been active behind the scenes. ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wahay, we've got our two candidates with 25 supports. Fys. Ta fys aym. 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie question!

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

New "Toys"

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)[reply]

Relient K

Relient K appears to contain Copyright violations. 67.141.242.173 04:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those with a curious nature!

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)[reply]

Def Con level rising

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A possible suggestion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Already had it MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist for info. Will add Zarbon to it I think, --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, Herby, why do you doubt me?! :-P :-P Cbrown1023 talk 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

unblock

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)[reply]

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 ([9]), "checking up on how quick the admins are" ([10]), presumably in preparation for disruption there, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. By the way, I found this gibberish by chance[11]. I have no strong opinion about that, though. --Aphaia 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Concern Over Editor

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 (talk • contribs) 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 rediff.com or TimesOfIndia.com.

He also brought quotes from freewebs.com. 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 Freewebs.com. 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 - 70.71.210.183. 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 [12]. And look what he has done here [13]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A bit off topic, so you are willing to endorse the latest version of WQ:CIVIL, Jeff? :) --Aphaia 15:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Backlog on VfD

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Edit the VFD discussion.
At the very top of the discussion (above the header), add {{vt|delete}} ~~~~.
At the very bottom of the discussion (below the last vote/comment), add {{vb}}
Save the page, ideally with an edit summary indicating that you're closing the vote and its result.
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:

Edit the VFD discussion.
At the very top of the discussion (above the header), add {{vt|keep}} ~~~~ or {{vt|no consensus}} ~~~~.
At the very bottom of the discussion (below the last vote/comment), add {{vb}}
Save the page, ideally with an edit summary indicating that you're closing the vote and its result.
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):

In one tab or window, open Wikiquote:Votes for deletion and edit the page.
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).
Select all the closed discussions from the VFD page and copy them to the clipboard (Ctrl+C for Windows).
Paste into the Log page (Ctrl+V for Windows).
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.
Delete the archived discussions from WQ:VFD. (You can use Ctrl+X to copy and delete in one go in the previous "copy" step.)
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)[reply]

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

ilikepie8

guess who is vandalizing wikiquote again here [14] and here [15] also here[16] and lastly here [17] —This unsigned comment is by AFUSCO (talk • contribs) .

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

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)[reply]

Excellent to see local use of these tools to sort of such disruption, thanks Aphaia --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. :) --Aphaia 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay!!!! /me huggles Aphaia; excellent use of your CheckUser tools. :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:WoW

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Local spam list policy (on the hoof!)

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

New pages solely with links. Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
Mass insertion of links (usually the porn spammers). Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other opinions?

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)[reply]

I speedied it. We don't need to pay attention to vandals. Period. --Aphaia 13:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

77.101.38.4? No, but I left a warning message (test2). --Aphaia 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU please

Brolsma (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
Numa (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

May well be the same IP though one account was created last year. With a bit of luck will expose an open proxy or similar. Let me know if I can help - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed share the same IP address, appear to be from identical systems, and have closely correlated editing patterns; i.e., the same person. From what I see in the user creation log, they were both just created, Brolsma at 23:25, 1 August 2007, and Numa at 06:42, 2 August 2007. Do you have reason to believe this is more than a simple two-sockpuppet vandal? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jeff early for me (& if so very early for you!) and I "read" it wrong! Cross wiki issues in the log and mailed you - thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wrap this up, the IP used by this sockpuppeting vandal turns out to be blocked now (and previosuly blocked multiple times) on at least two other projects for similar reasons:

Wikipedia: 15 January 2007, 23 March 2007
Wikibooks: 18 April 2007, 20 April 2007, 6 May 2007

Under clause #5 of m:Privacy policy#Policy on release of data derived from page logs, I provided Herbythyme this IP earlier to allow him to block it here, too, to prevent further disruption for a while. (He actually knew it from his own experience with this vandal, but I wanted to follow the forms for my first official CU action.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username block: Retard1016 (talk · contributions)

Thanks, Will ^{talk) 15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, could you explain why, please? My quick check shows no WQ activity except adding arguably excessive and/or unpithy quotes to Dead Like Me. This would be a content dispute that should first be dealt with by editing, second by talk page discussion, and third by requests for assistance. Is there something else I'm not seeing? Or is your request on the basis of objectionable username? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the username (hence the header) - sorry for the kind of harshness, though. Will ^{talk) 16:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced that it's a blockable name, though it's rather tasteless.--Poetlister 16:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked one called Bastard1 the other day which led to this! I guess comments would be good - some are obvious, some aren't? Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not amiable name but not obviously disruptive - it depends on user's behavior, I think. --Aphaia 11:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dratsab (talk · contributions)

Hi all! I noticed an addition by an IP to this userpage via recent changes, and discovered that it's been used as a repository of inane quotes, and it has been for over a year now. They keep being added by the user himself and an IP, clearly the same editor as they don't get removed nor reverted. The user has only edited his userpage, and nothing else; and I don't need to tell you the outcome of spelling his name backwards, do I... Some of the quotes are plain silly, while others are in very bad taste and/or racist. The bigger problem is, they are attributed to a certain "Greg Huffman", whom I believe to be a very unremarkable amateur wrestler. However, there are many people who share that name, including a professional photographer [18]. Of course, Google has indexed this userpage, and search for that name can lead anyone performing it right to it - which can certainly be construed as an attack. I was wondering if any actions should be taken regarding this issue, so I'll leave that to your judgement. Best regards, Phaedriel - 20:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ummm... that is very upsetting!!! IMO, it should be deleted right now (it is highly racist, rude, unnecessary, infringing our WQ:USER policy, and otherwise defaming to someone if there name happens to be Greg Huffman)... if anyone disagrees with this action, feel free to speak out here! :) Cbrown1023 talk 02:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to do an indef block on the user, then I was going to ask first and then I read the name backwards so I blocked them! However I think it may be appropriate to place a short block on the IP (user:67.185.216.219) or at the very least a very strongly worded message on their talk page? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if we put a block on a user, giving the reason on his or her talk page will be more friendly than reason only in log/block. --09:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed I should have done that and will do so in future (sometimes time is short and a block necessary) - given the preoccupation with the word this user may be linked.--Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU checks please

Two blocked vandal accounts worth a look for open proxies/history I think. User:George HW Bush & WoW is a limey - may or may not be related, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus User:Chocolate Rain! please. Doubt there is a connection but there may be another opne proxy etc, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This last one I may have already blocked the IP for as, lacking some sense & imagination, they vandalised Commons under the same name and last week vandalised en Books! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

interrupt
- CU results per se gives no suggestion of relation between User:George HW Bush and User:WoW is a limey. Both accounts use one IP address which are assigned to the different US ISP. The IP addresses have not been used as anon or by other registered users.
- User:Chocolate Rain! used 77.101.38.4 (talk · contributions) and only. This IP address is assigned to a UK provider. The anon edit was a disruptive content to the main namespace, claiming that he or she had been WoW, and blocked for one month by Herby on 9 August 2007. Regarding CU result, I extended the term to six months, preventing account creation.
- According to nullnetwork.net, all three IP addresses are not TOR node.
- Copy of results will be sent to Jeff as ENWQ CU for further reference. --Aphaia 10:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

back

Excuse me ignorence...but what is a "CU"? Xemit ^{talk to me} 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question: abbreviation of CheckUser, a sort of tool to detect disruptive editors. Technical information is available on that page. --Aphaia 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a separate RfCU page for these requests? I hope they won't be very frequent.--Poetlister 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it is necessary. We manage fine on en Books without it. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the pros and cons to have a separate RfCU,

pros

all public requests and reports will come to this page, it may bring the visibility
easier to trace discussions, particularly in the archives
hopefully make it easier to link to other projects' RfCU, if exist

cons

new page to watch; does it make sysop task much complicated?
still, we are not sure if all requests and performed checks are found there. It may depends on the local policy we'll develop (note: CheckUser Policy doesn't forbid CUs to accept requests privately, while some project - I heard French Wikipedia does so - accepts only public requests due to French jurisdiction requirements). It may increase only complexity, and give a mere illusion of transparency.
Is it too much overwhelmed? We have even no request page for blocking and banning.

Please note, I have no strong opinoin about this issue, and would rather love to hear your ideas. --Aphaia 10:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFUSCO

i am AFUSCO. i have been blocked but i did not vandalize i have identified the ilikepies as my neighbors on my network which i have now secured please respond where you want but i did not vandalize or make any bad edits. AFUSCO 00:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment on the above was posted by 67.87.225.29 (talk · contributions), not by AFUSCO (talk · contributions).

I'm in two halves over this - One side, I'm willing to AGF on this, but account creation should still be blocked on his IP and a keen eye on the creation log, but the other side says to me that he'll continue the vandalism. Will ^{talk) 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep a close watch and block if new vandalism happens. No real harm likely if we assume good faith. :) FloNight 02:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this stretches credibility beyond the breaking point. AFUSCO's first edit here was to request adminship, which is not something a new editor should even know about, let alone ask for. The "ilikepie" business started up several days later, starting with 67.87.225.29 (talk · contributions) and running through numbered versions of "ilikepie". This is a well-worn (one might even say pedestrian) pattern of sockpuppet-based vandalism, where one person pretends to be two or more inexplicably wiki-savvy new editors who insult and vandalize each other, then complain to admins for help. Furthermore, the request above is essentially the same argument that a Wikipedia editor, using this IP and implying he was the proper possessor of it, made unsuccessfully a month ago at w:User talk:67.87.225.29. He promised to "permanently revoke [the neighbors'] access to wikipedia using this ip (website block of the wikipedia.org domain)", an unfathomably limited restriction on someone who had severely harrassed him on Wikiquote a month earlier. All in all, I can't believe the sincerity of this user. The scenario he paints is not impossible, but is highly implausible. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, he broke the trust for months. I think now it unrealistic to claim to AGF in this point. The real harm is our own time to recover his vandalism and I think my time and my fellows' precious. --Aphaia 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would add two points: 1) evasion of blocking is not acceptable. 2) This anon created monobooks.js for this address. I think it also unacceptable. Ip addresses are not assigned to one and sole person, such user settings are unappropriate. Even now, this guy behave so selfishly. --Aphaia 08:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am strongly inclined to block the IP however I am aware that there are varying views on IP block length. The IP has been blocked twice before the last one being a month - I would now be inclined to a minimum of 3 months --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me, but on the other hand, our rule still says the maximum length should be one month. And I strongly hesitate to surpass it. We would like to revise the rule? --Aphaia 08:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the time connections between the edits of User:AFUSCO and the ilikepie vandals, see this previous discussion - InvisibleSun 09:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that consideration given to allowable block lengths - my views are on this page. The idea of something longer for such persistent disrupters across wikis seems valid to me --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that my neighbors were on my network until i was autoblocked on wikipedia and that is why i did not cut off their access and i only used my first edit to nominate myself for adminship because i noticed how few admins there are and i new about the policy from other wiki's 67.87.225.29 15:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that you have worn out your welcome here with the folks that had to fix the messes coming from your IP address. It was before my time and was not aware of the extent of the disruption you caused. It is much too soon for another chance. Maybe later down the road feelings will change if you stay away and do not attempt to evade your block. Take care, FloNight 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reset

About the length of blocking in general, the rule has "elastic clause" (I forgot it in details). It says

Sysops are chosen for their good judgement and ability to act in Wikiquote's best interests. As long as the block is not punitive, a sysop may block a user or IP address for more time than outlined above or for a different offense than outlined above. If this matter becomes an issue, the blocked user may e-mail another administrator and the matter may brought to the Administrators' noticeboard pending a consensus of the community. (italicized by the quoter)

So, different from what I said before, along the general feeling on the community and only then (so I believe), blocking for more than a month would be acceptable. It may be supported by the recent discussion on the mailing list: disruptions from a certain editor long for a long time, like this case, a long term blocking doesn't hurt the community's best interests. I'm strongly inclining to support the proposed blocking by Herby, for months. On the other side, I am not happy to wear out this clause, so I'd invite the community to revise the rule to reflect recent incidents and their lessons, for not overuse the elastic clause. Here is a draft for Blocking policy revision, please give a look and join the discussion! --Aphaia 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CU Process

i am just wondering why there is not a seperate page for CU --Alextheman 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think to make it easier to watch. The more separate pages it gets to be more difficult to keep an eye on all of them. Makes sense not to add more pages than truly needed. FloNight 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Flonight - this is not like wikipedia - everyone knows each other and there are not a large mass of pages for folk to watch - nice & quiet and we like it like that! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please change my name

From Edmundkh to EdmundEzekielMahmudIsa, and then leave me a message in the English Wikipedia. Thank you very much! --Edmundkh 15:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. however requested notice won't be given by myself. --Aphaia 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Tyson

There's been a huge flurry of activity on Mike Tyson by two anons. I find it difficult to assess whether it's vandalism o rnot. Can someone else check please.--Cato 21:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a massive addition of putatively sourced self-critical quotes from Tyson. This is not vandalism, which is the defacing of wiki pages. However, it surely puts a huge burden on the other editors of that article in analyzing the content. Since Wikiquote doesn't try to collect everything that someone says, but only a subset of especially memorable statements, one could approach it by selecting a set of the more memorable quotes that represent the ideas listed, ensuring that the sources are wiki-reliable and accurate (preferably converting them to proper citations to make the source-checking easier for everyone), and deleting the rest with a justification along the lines of "rm excessive quoting" or "trimming to pithy subset". It's basically a content dispute after that. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone returns?

User:DratsabReturnsGG and the talk page - have we not dealt with (deleted, blocked) this before under "dratsab" and/or variations? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had! I've dealt with it again - see above --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]