Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/009



InvisibleSun deleted this yesterday; it was re-created and I deleted it. How do you stop an article being re-created? [1]--Cato 21:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List them Wikiquote:Protected titles. --Aphaia 21:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - done.--Cato 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a crosswiki vandal, intending to harass Foundation people:

  • On meta, User: posted the same article, harassing Sandy Ordonez. (deleted, I put one year blocking on this IP address).
  • On this project, this was created by two anons respectively, and their addresses were different from meta one. Interesting ly, one of them posted a nonsense about Jimbo to User talk:Kalki.

This vandalism seems to be persistent vandal, please watch them carefully. --Aphaia 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this IP for 48 hours as all its edits seemed to be vandalism. We need to monitor it after the block expires.--Cato 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome from anon


How do you think about that? (talk · contributions)--Aphaia 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like it. It doesn't give them any one to contact and it appears weird to new users... :-) Cbrown1023 talk 23:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. Anonymity doesn't mix with responsibility in my opinion. I don't think only sysops must welcome newcomers, but expect at least registered editors with some experience on this project. We are not too exclusive, if we ask the anon not to do that again? --Aphaia 04:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of new articles on Main Page


The list currently includes Blue Dragon and Star Fox: Command, which are both up for deletion. Should we have a policy of excluding articles on VfD from the Main page?--Poetlister 11:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or guideline. I support their removal. --Aphaia 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've found it quite useful in the past to have such articles in such a prominent location. I used to bring up each one in turn and clean it up, add to it, or nominate it for deletion. I thought of it as a good way to call attention to new articles, rather than as a kind of "good article" list which would merit removing questionable ones from the list. (Of course, if we deleted an article before the list was changed, we'd typically remove it immediately from the list, possibly replacing it with another new article.) Since our Wikiquote:Good articles effort seems to be languishing, perhaps we should encourage this view of the new-page list? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, that reminds me we have no other pages or columns for taking attention. We have categories but it is not sure they are watched (I give sometimes a look to Category:Wikiquote no intro, check some special pages and visit WQ:VFD but not so much eager to other clean-up categories.
I suppose there are largely two kinds of approach.
  1. Anything clear and beauty on the front, otherwise it will be behind the scene: I think Poetlister is inclining to this direction.
  2. Anything need to attention (both goodies and baddies) on the front (and it is my summary of Jeff's.
I think both approaches have their rationales ... how about the third one? We have Wikiquote:Community portal. Can we have a new column for pages need to attention? Pages requested, need to cleanup, no-intro ... VFD paticular if votes are extended. How do you think that? --Aphaia 15:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is, as Aphaia suggests, whether anyone is watching any of these approaches for this purpose. Since Kalki usually selects the new pages, I assume he was thinking like me (or more accurately, I started thinking like him) in treating these as articles to review. But I really don't know if anyone else is doing this. Nor have I looked recently to see if anyone is using our existing maintenance categories to actually fix a substantial number of problems. Unless we have an abundence of editors using these categories and lists, I'm not sure how creating more places for them to look, or more ways to "slice and dice" Wikiquotian attention, will help the project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One possible solution might be to revive Wikiquote:Useful links and make it more visible, it is a nice portal for maintainance work, although I use mainly Jeff's page myself which was the origin of "useful links" and better maintained. --Aphaia 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding a bit on my own past practices: when making selections for the new pages I have usually simply grabbed the latest ones which weren't already nominated for deletion, or a few that were very obviously undeveloped and very likely to become nominated. Whichever pages became nominated for deletion beyond those have usually been removed once the pages themselves were deleted. I have rarely focused on making changes on a regular basis, and have usually let selections sit for a couple weeks or even more, but other admins have always been welcome to change them sooner than that. After the next few weeks, in which I am focusing primarily on many "material world" matters, I might try to increase the rate of changeover to a roughly weekly basis, but make no promises. ~ Kalki 18:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth making some effort in the selection of articles for the front page. It's a showcase, and if people look at these articles and find piles of crap, what will they think of us? I shall be bold and amend the list immediately.--Cato 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, new pages are almost have to be something less than our best examples of articles. As the above discussion indicates, we haven't been using them like Wikipedia uses its "Feature Article" process. In fact, there's no regular effort I'm aware of even to ensure that any of the articles listed on the main page are currently up to any Wikiquote standards. I'd suggest that, if we are really concerned about using articles listed on the main page as showcase material, we invest the effort to make the stuff that isn't rotated out much better, before we worry about articles that are inherently likely to be substandard. Or are you volunteering to, on a regular basis, improve all new articles before placing them on the main page, Cato? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to the changes just made by Cato, but like JeffQ I really don't see a need to showcase only good articles among the new ones. I do think it is generally a good idea to allow undeveloped articles to be listed, so long as they exist, even if they later become nominated for deletion. I do actually make some effort to update the list at points where there have been mostly good-quality articles on more than a very narrow range of subjects, which is one reason I have never kept to any set "schedule" — I have generally avoided updating when we have had a flood of rather poor or "single-issue" additions, though I have also usually declined to update much more frequently than normal even when we have had a flood of very good ones with broader themes.
On somewhat related matters, though I have often speedily deleted plain nonsense and vandalism, I have never been a "deletionist" of articles that could simply be improved, and seldom have taken action to remove them. In apparent sympathy with most of the regular editors here, I can confess I have no real liking of the plethora of electronic game quotes and inane wrestling exclamations that have often appeared, yet I have never been inclined to actually exclude them or remove material that is fairly well formatted, doesn't exceed fair use provisions, or isn't an unsourced libel of anyone, no matter how little personal interest I have had in the subjects. That many of the other regular editors have seen fit to delete many of the less weighty articles by consensus polling I can also admit has only slightly disturbed me, though I do think there is sometimes an overzealousness to delete articles on more worthy subjects that simply aren't well developed. I've usually not had much time myself to work on them, so I have very rarely objected even in these cases, and usually have done at least some work on the page if I have. When I've had the time to become involved with a poor article at all, I've usually been inclined to improve it to at least a level of adequacy rather than nominate it for deletion. ~ Kalki 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



i have been away from wikiquote for a while but do you know where i can report an impersonator of my other wiki accounts on wikiquote? i appreciate the help.--Alextheman 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to suggest

1) it is doubtful he has intentionally been away from the project, rather compulsory. 2) The IP addresses he uses are multiple, and both were used by AFUSCO, and hence blocked for a while. Alextheman was back to the project just after those blocking were automatically lifted up. 3) claim of harassment (and persecutors were often himself) was a typical action pattern of AFUSCO too. I therefore presume Alextheman is a sock of AFUSCO (talk · contributions) and propose for banning that account infitely. --Aphaia 15:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to be one of the more pathetic trolls we get from time to time, intent on wasting their own time and that of anyone else they happen upon with inane queries and disputes. I have no objections to a block, especially if this is an impersonator of other users, though I doubt that this will entirely prevent such activity until the person involved actually grows up. ~ Kalki 18:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what do you have against my statement i will save you the trouble of going crazy over this i am rarely here anyway i am user reqesting an indefinite block on my username and i would like to punch a hole your theory my account was created before the block was lifted as determined by block log--Alextheman 00:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Claimed Saikano sockpuppets have been complaining for the past two weeks that they cannot access the original account, User:Saikano. I decided to do a checkuser to help analyze the situation. Here's a summary:

Some additional history:

  • w:User:Saikano (who our Saikano claims to be) and his sockpuppets have been banned from Wikipedia for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry. The basis of this seems to be refusal to accept community decisions on proper content, both for articles (creating original research and other unsourced material) and in auxiliary pages (using WP for social networking, refusal to accept policies, recurring incivility, etc.).
  • Our Saikano seems to have engaged primarily in four activities:
    1. Working on Saikano (anime) (now moved to Saikano).
    2. Posting rambling material to his user pages (but that's mostly his perogative, unless it's a copyvio).
    3. Creating web-parody articles (since deleted) with no regard to proper sourcing or notability.
    4. Engaging in repeated sockpuppet creation and posting frantic messages, trying to get his original account accessible again, after being told we can't do this for him. (See Help:Logging in#What if I forget the password? for policy.)

Typically, Wikiquote gives banned users from other projects (who don't immediately begin abusing their editing privileges) the opportunity to rehabilitate their usernames by demonstrating plenty of good-faith editing (which need not be fully compliant right away with policies and practices, but should show a gradual learning and acceptance of such). Except for the recent bout of sockpuppetry, most of Saikano's questionable edits were in May-June.

Considering the recent sockpuppetry alone, I believe our concerns about frequent impersonations were unfounded in this case. While we cannot restore access to Saikano's original account, we might allow him to continue editing under one of his other usernames. However, I suggest we require that he identify all sockpuppets and promise not to use them to evade blocks. (We might block all but his chosen preferred new username. I'd suggest leaving at least User:Saikano unblocked, just in case he recovers his password himself, but we'd still insist that he stick to one account at a time and not evade blocks.)

All of this should be predicated on his learning Wikiquote policies and practices. In particular, I think he could demonstrate an understanding of Wikiquote article formatting most usefully by the long-overdue cleanup of the article Saikano. What does everyone else think about this? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, I wholeheartedly agree and appreciate your research. It's probably even more than this user deserves, but we'll continue to assume good faith. Thanks. ~ UDScott 18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I'm still on the fence about it, otherwise I would have blocked or unblocked him myself. He abused our good faith several months ago, but I don't want to dismiss him after our delay in confirming he was telling the truth about his old account. (I take responsibility for the delay. This is the first WQ case I've seen where someone incessantly demanding their account access be restored wasn't an imposter, so I can't blame anyone for not calling for a CU. But as the checkuser not participating in the discussions, I should have jumped in to do a check much earlier.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an old softy, but I'll assume good faith.--Cato 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late, I would like to say three things
  1. As co-checkuser, reviewed the further details too which Jeff let me share (we exchange detailed CU results always), I endorse his analysis of user identification.
  2. There is a relevant report on WQ:VP from me about my recent sysop action; I blocked User:Akemi, one sock listed here due to disruptiveness and less productivity.
  3. A related action of Akemi2.0 is found on my talk. As he did on English Wikipedia, this user showed no hesitation to evade blocking.
Since I interacted with this user in the period his disruptiveness was quite obvious (this June), my point of view may have become severer biased by my own experience. Also I made an action already, so I'd rather invite the community to review the investigation of Jeff and related action around this series of accounts as well as sysop actions around those, not to voice my further opinion currently. --Aphaia 02:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look Im sorry ok?! I did not mean to disrupt the site, create multi-sockpuppets, make idiotic crap pages, ect...! i am even more sorry for this account now but its my only way of communicating to the site! I was unaware of I was causeing this site any problems but I am sorry for it! I beg you all to give me another chance! Please! By the way Wikipedia's banning was a misunderstanding and Ill fix it! --Nijikon 15:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made another attempt to explain the situation to our stubborn fellow, this time at User talk:Nijikon#User:Saikano. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Ward Harrison VfD


This VfD has been extended twice now and is now overdue for closure, so we really need to close it, but there are few active admins that haven't participated in it, and there's enough confusion in the situation to make it a little challenging to do so, suggesting that someone not involved do the closing. (I'd be happy to discuss why I think it's still a little confusing, but I don't think I can do so without implicitly recommending a solution, and I don't want to taint the process.) I think we've got a good test case for the situation recently discussed at WQ:VP#VfD. Could one of our admins who hasn't expressed an opinion on this article take a shot at closing it? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed as a keep. I did express an opinion on the old version (weak keep; thought she was notable but shouldn't keep a copyvio) but the new version is completely different and I'm 100% certain it's a keep. If anyone disagrees, well, it's time we tried out our deletion review policy! --Cato 21:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cato. My concern was that three editors express unchanged "delete" or "delete as copyvio" positions. I suspected LrdChaos and Ubiquity would have been content with interpreting their votes as no longer applying after the copyvio fix, but I prefer not to infer and didn't want to solicit explicit votes supporting my position. And Herbythyme is offline until next week. Even so, we seemed to be squeaking by with a 6-3 consensus, but I felt uncomfortable being the one to make that assessment. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was neutral before but am definitely keep now.--Poetlister 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of protected template : {{Vblock}}



Could a sysop please make the following modifications to Template:Vblock please ?

  • [[Wikiquote:Administrators|Adminstrator]] --> [[Wikiquote:Administrators|administrator]]
  • <includeonly>~~</includeonly>~~ to be deleted/changed in the default message, it doesn't work (see User:Persian Poet Gal for example)

Thanks! chtit dracotalk 05:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your report :) --Aphaia 06:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Though there still is a mistake : adminstrator should be replaced by administrator ;-) I know I'm annoying :-p chtit dracotalk 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! And don't worry - you're not being annoying. ~ UDScott 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out {{pwelcome}}, which is the same as {{welcome}} except that it is self-signing. The same modification can be made to other templates. Poetlister 21:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I have blocked User:Danzilgoes for 24 hours for vandalism. The user page suggests that this is a bot run by a Wikipedia administrator. i hope that's not true!--Cato 21:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked four socks indefinitely. Can we please have an urgent checkuser to block the IP.--Cato 22:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was excellent fast work, folks! Cato and InvisibleSun blocked all but one of this "pick pick" vandal's sockpuppets, each within minutes of its initial activity. (I've blocked the only other one, JazBot3 (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log).) My checkuser runs indicate this is a bit more complicated than the usual set of vandal sockpuppets, so it'll take me a little while to collate the information and draw some useful conclusions. I'll report the results anon. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your research, Jeff (I'm just back from Wikimania things). I agree with you it is quite complicated and take a time to analyze properly. So thank you for your coming extensive research and giving the insight in advance :) --Aphaia 11:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a cross wiki issue to some degree. A number of IPs were Open Proxies and I have now blocked them as such (together with a few more I found). Thanks Jeff & Cato, always worth checking those who purport to be someone well known elsewhere on wiki (I was caught by a Cary Bass impersonator a couple of months back!) --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay in reporting back. Because this "pick pick" vandal used multiple open proxies that have been blocked, and that these proxies may have been unwitting accomplices, I don't believe a detailed public report is necessary or advisable. Anyone who needs more information should contact me through my email link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon vandal to stop


OK, guys, watch out for this.... Verizon IPs are attacking multiple projects... and apparently employees from Verizon's abuse department are responsible for this.

Don't know if you can stop it, but hey, just a warning... --Hodhith22 08:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP tagged by this user is not a Verizon one. I removed the tag and told the user. I suggest a watchful eye might be appropriate though, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can a bureaucrat please rename my account from the present username to "Mafeu" (privacy reasons). Cheers! MatthewFenton 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. ~ Kalki 22:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Mafeu 22:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr - other views please


Spotted this User:C and wondered so looked around and found this, then this and then this. If there were barnstars for sandbox edits that would be fine..... I'll be interested in others views, thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, that's 256 edits to the sandbox (as of this date). Weird, but harmless. BD2412 T 20:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've seen no harm in anything he's done here. (I just reviewed his edits in some depth, and while it shows an odd selection of activities, none seem to be the kinds we normally associate with problem editors preparing for mischief. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say he's trying to do mostly small, useful maintenance edits without controversy while he learns Mediawiki in some depth.) I have just asked him to create his own sandbox so that he doesn't scare aware newbies who might get confused with so much activity on the community sandbox. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple accounts issue was what I was wondering about as much as anything I guess? --Herby talk thyme 09:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be open accounts and not sockpuppets. I once blocked someone on Wikipedia (for 15 minutes) for excessive edits to the sandbox, and when asked they said that they were trying to break the record for most edits in one minute. As BD2412 says, this is wierd but harmless at the moment. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's not bite newbies. If they do anything seriously disruptive, we can take action.--Cato 11:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the multiple-user subject, this pricked the interest of some editors earlier. But as the three earlier usernames (Inappropriate (talk · contributions), Appropriate (talk · contributions), and P (talk · contributions)) had only a handful of edits (all but 1 to the Sandbox, since deleted), and zero edits after "C" was created, I just asked C to identify his sockpuppets and avoid using them, which he promptly did. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone please look through this IP's edits; extremely strong POV that may need toning down, e.g. on Mitt Romney. I haven't time right now.--Poetlister 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 and I have been through all the edits. He clearly has a POV, but where there are legitimate quotations I have left them.--Cato 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up


Creation of pages or blanking leading to a random string of letters. This is prevalent across wikis over the past few days. So far all have come from Open Proxies & I have been blocked them as such (hard blocked, 1 year). I'll not change the recent blocks placed though others may wish to review them but this is affecting all wikis that I watch at present, cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've changed some of the recent blocks where they are confirmed as Open Proxies elsewhere with the same activity. I lack the time at present but if any admin wishes to review my blocklist on Meta and/or Commons of the past few days you will find some more to block if you wish to, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering around trying to find the right place to request a edit to a protected page. Usually I would use {{Edit protected}}, but it doesn't existe. So, as I mentioned on the talk, could you add the buttons found on User:Steinninn/Create to MediaWiki:Newarticletext. Thanks. --Steinninn 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for now. There is no concensus for addition. I would add that it doesn't seem to work. If you put any button, it bring you to edit the page, User:Steinninn/Create, not create a new article. I personally think it pointless to add those code as requested. --Aphaia 12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the intent here, since this would be part of MediaWiki:Newarticletext, which is displayed when a new page is created, the {{SUBJECTPAGENAMEE}} parameter would be replaced with the title of the new page, so that pressing the button (which includes a preload of our Wikiquote:Templates subpages) would have the same effect as filling in a page title in the equivalent input boxes at Help:Starting a new page. (It only uses Steinninn's page because it's embedded there, not in the new-article header page.) But I haven't studied it enough or experimented to confirm this. However, Aphaia has a point. This kind of thing is usually discussed on the relevant talk page (MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext here), and if you want to bring full community attention to it, you should post a note about it at Wikiquote:Village pump. Administrators have the ability to make such a change, but the content of such pages and changes in procedures are a community decision. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This had been on the talk page for a few weeks, so I thought it was time for an edit, but if you want discussion then I put it up at Wikiquote:Village pump. --Steinninn 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat less available — I'm back!


I know I haven't been around too much lately, but I'll probably be around even less during the month of November. I'm trying my hand at NaNoWriMo again this year, and it'll probably be a big time sink. I've put up an availability notice on my user & talk pages in case anyone should come looking for me. You can e-mail me if anything important comes up, though I probably will be at least checking here every so often, so if you leave a message on my user talk page I'll eventually get it. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to have you for whatever time you can spare. Good luck with the NaNoWriMo project! ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, but my NaNoWriMo attempt this year was a flop, so I decided to pop back up a few days early. —LrdChaos (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent account block


Please permanently block my account User:Петър Петров as I use the latin-letter one User:Petar Petrov. User and talk pages are already redirected. Thanks. --Петър Петров 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Cato 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change username from H2O to King of Hearts


Hi. I would like to change my username from User:H2O to User:King of Hearts to be consistent with other my other projects. Here is my confirmation dummy edit on the English Wikipedia: [2]. Thanks. -- H<sub>2</sub>[[User talk:H2O|O]] 06:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. ~ Kalki 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username change (vishwin60 to O)


Please change my username to O to prevent any mishaps of SUL in the future. To confirm that I own other accounts on other projects that have the same username, here is my matrix. Thanks, vishwin60 20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done / 好了。--Aphaia 19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change Username

Done. --Aphaia 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Hamsterlopithecus 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia account


Grateful for advice please. I tried to start a Wikipedia account as Yehudi. I can't because there is already an account of that name. However, that account has never done anything. Is there a way to take over the account or get it renamed?--Yehudi 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations which describes how to make such requests. ~ Kalki 13:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Looks like I have to start an account with another name and use that for a few months before I can make the request.--Yehudi 14:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ilikepie or his imitator


Hi Ilikepie is now choosing the way to be a cross-wiki vandal. He appeared on Japanese Wikiquote. If you are active on another project, it may be wise to be wary. --Aphaia 07:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I wish to change my username, removing my dob, which I strongly regret publishing. From Smb1971 to Smb. Ta. smb 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been done. ~ Kalki 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing VfD for Never


Jus to note I closed a VfD that was a clear keep. Apologies if that was presumptuous.--Yehudi 15:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yehudi, I applaud your initiative, but an administrator is supposed to take responsibility for closing VfDs, per Wikiquote:Deletion policy#Finishing a vote for deletion. Even when the consensus may seem apparent, there are often other considerations, as this is not a simple voting-counting process. In this one, we had 3 keeps and 1 move, a rather low participation for current VfDs, as well as a lot of relevant side discussion. This suggests that most folks hadn't made up their minds yet or were busy with other things (like Thanksgiving preparations?). It may be useful in these situations to extend the discussions. In any case, the current system expects admins to make such judgment calls, as they have been formally entrusted with these responsibilities and take the heat for any problems that arise. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not bite newbies. This was absolutely clear-cut, and on Wikipedia it would have been quite appropriate for a non-admin close. I would have closed it myself earlier today, but felt too involved with the article having contributed most of it. Yehudi was technically wrong to close it because he's not an admin (yet), but he should be encouraged.--Poetlister 23:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to bite, only to point out that (apparently unlike Wikipedia) we have a policy leaving closures to admins. We have a hard enough time getting participants to read the policies before participating, so I think the feeling has been to keep this responsibility in the hands of the folks who have already demonstrated their knowledge of and work within policies. On the other hand, I certainly noticed that Yehudi did all the steps correctly, short of archiving (often delayed anyway to give folks a chance to see the results), which is why I didn't revert the closure or change anything.
If no one feels left out of the discussion, we can let it stand, although an admin should confirm it. (I had been thinking about extending the discussion and commenting, but if I'd felt that strongly about it, I would have done so earlier. I try to encourage extensions in low-participation discussions, especially around major holidays — I think I extended quite a few last Christmas.) By the way, I have to say that I wasn't thinking of Yehudi as a newbie. I've seen his work and posts in so many places in the past 5 weeks that I've already gotten to thinking of him as a regular. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am personally content to keep it, but indeed because I feel so, and concerning the relatively inactive discussion (due to US holidays?), I reverted his edit on discussion page and talk. While I unintentionally left the archive page ... (so it can be seen from the archive page). I think Jeff didn't bite him - hopefully Yehudi feels so too - and Jeff made his remark well and civil. If any admin take my action harsh or inappropriate, please feel free to re-revert it again. --Aphaia 11:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't important but I am with Poetlister here. I accept the fact that closures are done by admins here but to me it is unnecessary. Certainly with a "keep" like that I felt it was fine (I saw it on RC). Quite some time before I was an en wb admin I was closing VfDs (however - there almost no one else bothered, they are rather less organised that here).
Participation in the community as a whole is something I applaud --Herby talk thyme 14:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we have a substantial difference of opinion on a policy, which is often a good sign that it's time to review the policy. I suggest we take it up at Wikiquote talk:Deletion policy (and let folks know about it at WQ:VP), so that the community can be clear on what everyone should and shouldn't do.
Meanwhile, Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Never is in an indeterminate state. While Aphaia reverted the closure, she didn't restore the {{vfd}} tag, and the discussion is formally not closed but is past its deadline and has not been extended. I'd like to clean this up. Unless another admin chooses either to extend it or completely close it by midnight tonight (UTC), I will extend it myself and make some comments I'd been considering so it's not just an exercise in formality. But I have no problem with a closure, if folks prefer. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see anything wrong with closing myself, and I'll do it unless there's a good reason not to. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree to closure. Yes, much to my surprise Yehudi is still a newbie; he's made only 78 edits since 18 October.--Cato 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to cause a storm. I was just trying to be helpful.--Yehudi 12:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of a newbie contrib


Can anyone review my revert at revision? I felt it intuitively inappropriate, but I don't know this person themed on that article, I may have been wrong. --Aphaia 11:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me the reversion looks good and maybe an eye on future contribution (though I too could be wrong). --Herby talk thyme 14:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I have (in general) with such tool-based reversions is that they imply vandalism, which as Aphaia suggests is not necessarily the case for some subjects known for their scatalogical, vandal-like "quotes". My preference is to manually revert with an edit summary like "rv unsourced [X] quote", with "[X]" being whatever is appropriate from a list like "unpithy", "unoriginal", "unlikely", "by apparent unnotable", etc. This (A) avoids the possibly unnecessary implication of vandalism, (B) tells serious editors what the deficiency is in legitimate quotes; and (C) clearly and repeatedly informs editors that the best way to have a quote taken seriously is to include a reliable source, which we just cannot emphasize enough. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I admit it wasn't necessary to be rollbacked: How do you think to begin a campaign about this issue, say,
  1. "Use the undo button instead of rollback, unless it is obvious vandalism, and give a reason as possible as we can."
  2. "Bug a request to bugzilla, giving a reason to rollback."
The second may take a time (and there is a risk which won't be realized) but the first one can be done immediately. --Aphaia 01:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to delay a response, Aphaia. I'm afraid that I've been so minimally involved in Wikiquote (by my standards) that literally 90% of what I would ordinary follow-up on, I leave to others to pursue. (Hardly a day goes by that I don't write a few paragraphs that I ultimately delete instead of saving because I don't feel I have the time to respond to subsequent responses like yours above.)
In general, I support most campaigns to improve our processes. But unless and until I can allocate more time to helping to make them happen, I will probably leave them to everyone else to pursue. On this issue, all I will say for now is that I find my usual method quick and easy:
  1. Edit the previous version.
  2. Add a 3- to 5-word edit summary as I described above.
  3. Save.
This takes me less time that it does to carefully append the same information to the ridiculously crowded edit summary auto-generated by "undo". Frankly, I find a terse reason for reverting an edit far more important than "Undo revision 123456 by Some User (Talk)". I applaud the developers' attempt to provide auxiliary information in these summaries, but reversions should explain themselves, first and foremost, with as much good faith as can be assumed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked user:C indefinitely. While some - very few - of his or her edits are useful (rather say "unproblematic" - but not productive anyway), the most part of edits coming from this account were going to Sandbox, his or her user page or user subpages. I think it rather disruptive - Wikiquote is not a testwiki and principally its resource sustained by donation shouldn't be wasted in such a way imo. --Aphaia 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that block, you are corect that Wikiquote is not a testwiki and I do not see him contributing much constructively. Cbrown1023 talk 22:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



My user talk page keeps getting hit by a spambot, it keeps creating User talk:SunStar Net/w/index.php repeatedly. Please can someone please block the offending IP addresses?? Thanks, --SunStar Net 12:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citing speedy deletion cases


Now that our admin staff is growing significantly, with a great diversity of experience and opinions, I think it's even more important for us to be careful about following policies. One area that troubles me is doing speedy-deletions without citing specific cases in the edit summaries. While this may seem like unnecessary formality to some, I would argue that it has four major benefits:

  1. It informs the community of what official policy was invoked.
  2. It requires that admins think carefully each time to match the action to one or more SD cases, rather than just make an arguable judgment call.
  3. It encourages admins to periodically refresh their awareness of the details of Wikiquote:Speedy deletion, which changes occasionally.
  4. It exposes weaknesses in the current policy that can lead to improving it.

This is just my opinion, of course, but I would like to suggest that we all try to mark our SDs with edit summaries prefaced by info like "SD: unremarkable subject" or at least "SD: A4" to help the community in this way. Thank you for considering this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persuasive argument! Sorry if I did that recently... Also I would like you to give your opinion to Wikiquote talk:Proposed deletion#General review. Prod and SD are somehow relevant I think. --Aphaia 04:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll offer a different view. The requirement to discover esoteric formal reasons for deletion is a reason why I will not be deleting much on en wp.
I actually see the situation rather differently. If I leave the default message members of the community can actually see at some of what the content was rather than solely administrators being able to access that information.
The only time I conceal the information from the community at large is if it contains personal information or advertising (to prevent the intended outcome of publicising the information) or if it is offensive (common good taste).
Solely my thoughts --Herby talk thyme 08:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One need not conceal anything. A prefix of "SD:A4: " would take only 7 characters to make clear why the article was speedy-deleted, and the loss of 7 characters of the content following "was: " is unlikely to lessen any insight. I must admit that I usually prefer to spell out the case (as I don't like tossing about acronyms when doing stuff that editors might object to), but Herby's point makes a good case for brevity in the prefix. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I agree with Herby. This is one of those times. SD:A4 means precious little to most people. Poetlister 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of a mind that in deleted obvious nonsense, the deleted text speaks for itself. BD2412 T 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be a distaste for quoting speedy deletion reasons by their code as is done on Wikipedia; we generally prefer to write it out "No quotes" or "Non-notable subject". Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] "SD:A4 means precious little to most people". Yes, but it means more than no statement at all. As I said, I prefer to be clearer, but Herby's point about the default edit summary is important, too. Unfortunately, we can't be too verbose with either one, let alone both, and SDs leave no discussion to be referenced. Consider the last 6 SDs as I write this, all done by InvisibleSun:
  1. Jari Sillanpää — SD: A1. Content was: '<nowiki>{{db|no quotes}} Jari Sillanpää is a well-known Finnish performing artist. His career began in the Seinäjoki Tango Festival in 1994. He has released eight albums and recorded over 100 songs.'</nowiki>
  2. Southport england — SD: A1. No quote. Content was: ' == Southport, England == Location: Southport is located in northwest England. It is northwest of Manchester. His...' (and the only contributor was '')
  3. Mason Clarke — SD: A4. Unnotable subject. Content was: 'Mason Clarke is the greatest person to ever walk the face of the earth. include the following: *"My name is......' (and the only contributor was '')
  4. Football factory — SD: A1. Content was: 'come on then' (and the only contributor was '')
  5. Fatty — SD: A1. Content was: 'wikiquote is a good place to learn exspecially' (and the only contributor was '')
  6. Anthem — SD: A3. Attack. Content was: 'Loser' (and the only contributor was '')
(Sorry to pick on you, InvisibleSun — I really appreciate the explicit cases — but your examples just happened to be the most recent.) The default edit summaries of #4, #5, and #6 suggest the worthlessness of the articles, so explicit cases don't add much to the community's understanding. But #2 included a lead section that was too long to indicate its deficiencies, and #3, while indicative of a vanity quoter's hyperbole, could have just been an overenthusiastic fan who nevertheless provided quotes beyond the content excerpt, making its SDing not obvious solely from its default summary. The cases assure the community that there was a specific policy-based reason for the loss of the article they can no longer examine.
And #1 is one of the problems I'm worried about (thus my last three reasons for citing the cases). We don't have a "no quotes" SD case. Our "no content" allows no-quote articles with reasonable intros more consideration than summary deletion, and in fact was the inspiration for our new Wikiquote:Proposed deletion (see WQt:SD#Addition of "no quotes" clause). Yet I see this kind of article SD'd with some regularity. (I think of this as a "Minotaur" case, where Kalki long ago convinced me that we should give reasonable subjects a chance to attract quotes. It was eventually VfD'd, but it got its chance.)
It's all too easy to delete something like a quoteless "Jari Sillanpää" or a vanity-like "Mason Clarke" just because we haven't heard of the subject. The famous but old musical Anything Goes almost got axed after a 14-day VfD in 2005 because no VfDer but I had heard of or remembered it, and I almost missed the discussion. Had we had today's WQ:SD policies and practices, it might have been SD'd (A4: unremarkable subject) with a default edit summary something like this:
Content was: '"It's bad enough being a minister."' (and the only contributor was '')
That is, assuming the deleting admin even considered which case to use. S/he might have just thought, not unreasonably but still incorrectly, that the not-especially-interesting sole quote and the unfamiliar title made it look like some kind of vanity work and SD'd it without doing some research. It might not seem like much of a loss, but I really think we should try not to do express-lane violence to people's contributions without a compelling (and possibly explicit) justification, however terse.
Anyway, I don't think there's necessarily a single "right" thing to do for all edit summaries. I'm just pointing out the advantages of what I'm suggesting, which won't always be needed but shouldn't hurt, and can encourage us to be more careful about deleting apparent junk that may actually have some promise. (And sorry about the impromptu essay. ) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difficulty in making speedy deletions is that if the article being deleted is of a certain length, it will already have used up all of the space allowable in the edit summary. The only way to get around this is to delete a portion of the article. This leads to the temptation to make the edit summary as short as possible (as with "SD: A4. Unnotable") in order to allow more of the article to be seen.

    I admit I'm still getting the hang of using Prod rather than SD as a means of dealing with unpromising articles, in part because it seems at times to conflict with our current policies. I had, for example, checked Jari Sillanpää and Southport england and found them notable per Wikipedia; but they were written so as to be covered, to my mind, by our rule of Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia. The articles were somewhere between definitions and abbreviated encyclopedia entries and therefore seemed fit for deletion. Does our Prod policy now state, in so many words, "Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia — unless, that is, someone else comes along and completely transforms your encyclopedic entry into a suitable Wikiquote page"?

    You had mentioned, Jeff, that "It's all too easy to delete something like a quoteless 'Jari Sillanpää' or a vanity-like 'Mason Clarke' just because we haven't heard of the subject." Well, yes, it is easy to eliminate an article like Mason Clarke because of our own Speedy Deletion rule A4: "Unremarkable subject. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Before speedily deleting an article, I always check Wikipedia and/or Google. If I find, as with Mason Clarke, that there is no indication of notability, then I delete the page for the reason summarized in SD:A4. Do I take it that Prod now makes this obsolete? If so, we must eliminate A4 as a Speedy Deletion reason. The Mason Clarke page was the sort of page of which we get at least half a dozen a day: an arch, snarky, inside-joke about someone who is all too well known to the page's creator. Since these pages almost always claim the excellence, if not the positively cosmic greatness of individuals, does this mean they represent something which makes a claim to "the importance or significance of its subject" and therefore should be given a Prod rather than an SD? This doesn't seem to be what you had meant, and yet I don't know how else to interpret it.

    Based on the above discussion, I have now restored the pages for Jari Sillanpää, Southport england and Casey calvert, placing Prod tags on all of them, while Mason Clarke remains unexhumed. - InvisibleSun 03:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Officially we don't have prod after its trail finished *tsk tsk*. Your review of incidents in the trial period and participation to its finalization/officialization will be appreciated :) --Aphaia
Okay, I think I've really crossed over the line with my "helpful" advice at this point. I am forced to consider that if I have enough time to write an essay about the wonders of "better" documentation of frequent actions, I might better serve the community by actually doing the actions and taking the pressure off the folks who are doing this stuff far more often than I am, and who can better appreciate the scope of work involved. I think I need to spend more time getting my hands dirty instead of trying to direct the most effective gardeners.
I apologize for being so heavy-handed. I hope I haven't scared folks off of doing speedy deletions. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I will avoid them here as I do on en wp. I'm a simple soul - if it's junk get rid of it, if not, leave it alone. But that is just me --Herby talk thyme 08:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm confused. Is it the consensus of this group that (notwithstanding Aphaia's smiley-noted remark that prod is not usable now that its trial period is over) prod is more appropriate than db when
  1. in the case of SD:A1, there is the slightest chance quotes might be added, and
  2. in the case of SD:A4, there is the slightest chance of notability?
If that's the case, does that mean that if someone removes the prod without remedying the cause, VFD is the only further recourse? --Ubiquity 06:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod is a success as far as I'm concerned, and I'll continue to use it until I hear otherwise. If someone removes a prod, it is a contested prod and should go to VfD, yes.--Cato 18:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reset

New toy to play with. If we populate the list properly it should cover the concerns and be effective, cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - can we make the VfD option provide a link to the VfD debate? BD2412 T 15:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka, it works! Now if you click the VfD option, it should create a link directly to the relevant VfD discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How did you get it to link to the vfd? Perhaps Herby could take a look and bring the code to enbooks? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing special, I just added [[Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/{{PAGENAME}}]]. The PAGENAME function picks up the name of the page being deleted and plugs it into the formula (I tested it). BD2412 T 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a moment of temporary insanity, forgetting that you can still see the source if you're not a sysop here. Added to enbooks. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem if you ever get a second AfD on an article, but I've never seen that on Wikiquote.--Cato 18:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that happens several times a year. (Just check Special Pages in the Wikiquote: namespace and look for all the titles with "2nd" and "second".) In fact, there's a problem whenever the nomination title doesn't match the article title, which can also happen when nominating multiple pages (which has been done by including all the titles, or nominating a large set of articles by description, like we've done with images and speeches). However, whenever this does happen, we can just select "Other reason" and write an appropriately linked edit summary if we want to provide the link. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in Tokyo from Thursday till next Wednesday or so. During that time I'm tend to be offline. I think I passed you all my current concerns (partly by email) and am convinced you handle them well :) Sorry for inconvenience, if any, and happy editing! --Aphaia 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changing user name


I would like to change my user name from "Jvian" to "Janice Vian", so that it will be the same as my Wikipedia user name. I hope I've made this request in the proper manner. Thank you Jvian 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to me


Hello. This message is directed to the admins. I am very annoyed at the level of ignorance and I've been bringing this up for the past 8 months. By this I am referring to Aphaia, UDScott, LrdChaos, Kalki, and many others. I was a user before. however, my name was banned 8 months ago. I do NOT want to create another user name. Jeffq seriously banned me without any ground and he didn't permit me to speak at all. I was banned and repeatedly permanently banned within the same timeframe, without being allowed to explain myself. Please unban me so that I can continue contributing with my original user name, Zarbon. I am seriously sick and tired of creating pages under my ip address. For more reference to my work and recent activity, you can check out my contribs to see all the people and categories, along with hundreds of quotations that I have added to wikiquote. This goes to all the admins here. I have absolutely nothing to hide and I want to contribute using my USER NAME. It's annoying to do all this work and not be able to have a user page. What happened 8 months ago was Jeffq banned me for "arrogating sysop actions", which pretty much means that I was telling everyone to keep track of some vandaliser. The vandaliser pretty much got away with his idiocy and continued to open multiple accounts and I was banned nonetheless for trying to do a better job than Jeffq at stopping him. I'm not trying to say I'm better, I'm just pointing out that it was seriously annoying and extremely wrong of him to ban me after all the contributions I have made. In any case, the admins have been ignoring me for the last 8 months and I have still not been able to log in with my original user name. Please, all of you, be aware that I am always contributing and I do not want to be uncredited, so to speak. Please, if you people can, give me a few minutes of your time and restore my user name, Zarbon so that I can continue to contribute with it and you can keep track of my activity instead of having to use my ip address. Thanks again for your time and patience. - 19:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your problem is the extreme presumptions you have been prone to make about others, and the demands you have tended to make on other people's time. I actually believe you probably should be allowed to edit under the name Zarbon, as malicious intent on your part is not proven (so far as I am aware), but I (and likely others) have had no particular inclination to unblock that name because, frankly, your comments and behavior have tended to be very annoying. ~ Kalki 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] FYI, the discussion under which this banning happened can be found at "Anime article edits, VfD, and sockpuppetry" in the WQ:AN archives. This includes the results of a complex and comprehensive CU done on Meta, given the cross-project problems with Zarbon and his putative opponents, and the lack of Wikiquote CUs at the time. I won't bore everyone here with the details, which are available in that discussion. But the main result was that the combatting sides were "determined with high probability" to be the same person, and were also tied to a username known to create sleeper accounts with good-faith editing to confuse the admins. Even if this assessment were inaccurate, User:Zarbon alone has done enough disrupting that it seems unwise to unblock this name.
If this user's intent were primarily to contribute positively to the project, he could simply establish a new name (one that wouldn't attract the attention of the supposed enemies he has) and do his editing. Instead, he chooses to fight for this name while adding copious unsourced quotes with novel source-line formatting (and doing so with hundreds of tiny edits instead of simply adding material in reasonable pieces) in an apparent attempt to show good-faith editing. Everyone, of course, should examine the details and make their own judgments, but I just don't think supporting this request is wise for Wikiquote. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually be more comfortable with him making all those edits under a username rather than an IP. Perhaps we should put him on parole, lift the ban but check for sockpuppets periodically (and without warning). Let him edit so long as he behaves. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Unblocking Zarbon will not increase his disruption; on the contrary, it will help us track it. He has shown commendable honesty by not just creating a new user name.--Cato 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too have tended to believe this editor was probably creating self-adversarial sock-puppets, and to edit in disruptive ways, merely as some form of pathetic amusement, but I myself don't know this for a fact; but I am willing to defer to JeffQ's awareness of matters in this regard, as well as the fact of the block made at Wikipedia, and feel no particular inclination to unblock this person. ~ Kalki 19:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to me people. I am not a liar. Everything I say here is the truth. Whatever check that was done back then is more than inaccurate and I've been trying to prove that. I can't however prove my innocence if I am blocked in the place of someone else. It's more than discriminatory towards someone such as myself to accuse me of something which I myself have always tried to go against. Actually, it's moreso disturbing to me right at this moment that Kalki is vouching for Jeffq, whom doesn't know the slightest bit of what kind of mistreatment he has given me in the past 8 months. Not to mention the amount of ignorance I have received. Also, as Cato and BD2412 have pointed out above, it would be much easier to track my activity if I could simply use my user name. This is common logic. Why would you want to make it harder for me and moreso for yourselves for tracking one person. I do not want to create another name because I did NOT initially do anything wrong to be met with punitive results. If I was wrong, then I'd deserve to be punished. But I never did anything wrong here other than reverting the madness provoked and brought on by a vandalizer. And for me to face the consequences of this person's stupidity is more than uncalled for. If I am allowed to continue with my original name, there is absolutely no reason for me to create another. In light of this, in a way, creating another name would be making a sockpuppet. I DO NOT want to make sockpuppets. I am not a vandaliser and I do not want to be seen in that light. The last time I actually did anything close to sockpuppeteering was on wikipedia, where I admitted to creating the name of Dodoria, and was rightfully banned for it. In this case, it was different. But here, I have done absolutely nothing of the sockpuppeteering kind. I have however tried to do a better job than admins prior by asserting and acknowledging about REAL sockpuppeteers who continue to vandalize pages. Because of this, I was met with harsh retribution by Jeffq. I don't want to say I hate Jeffq, but he has shown such a level of ignorance towards me that I am more than slightly annoyed at his work ethic. In general, I seriously want to continue contributing, but I want to do it with THE only name I created on wikiquote. How else can I prove to you people that I am who I am if I am not allowed to continue contributing. I am going as far as to show everyone here my ip. And it's the only ip I ever use. How can unbanning me possibly be a wrong course of action if all I'm doing is continuing my initial contributions. All I know is that if I am allowed to use my user name, I can do what I need to with the comfort of knowing that I can login. Please, I am urging the rest of the admins here to look at my case and please help me because I am seriously being shafted aside and it's extremely and moreso excessively disrespectful. Please help me get unbanned. - 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would support a parole or cautious restoration of the user name for the reasons BD2412 cites, but I don't feel strongly about it. I would point out to Zarbon that the way you are approaching this is not helping you. The other admins and I have worked closely and harmoniously with Jeff Q for months or years, whereas this is the first some of us are hearing about you. You are coming on strong, talking about ignorance and incompetence among admins that I generally have a lot of respect for. When someone you don't know says something surprising about someone you do know, it's human nature to dismiss it. I would guess you'd get a lot farther just sticking to your assertion that you have been a responsible contributor in the eight months of your ban, and that that should entitle you to another chance. --Ubiquity 02:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally. Someone with some assertive reasoning. Thank you for giving me an opinion on as to how I should approach this. Believe me, I mean no disrespect toward Jeffq or any other admin. I just feel very disappointed in this excessively long ban for something which I feel was provoked by someone else. How else can I explain this to you...I mean put yourself in my position. All I want to do is to be able to continue with my original user name. Think of this from a logical perspective, I mean is it too much to ask for, considering the fact that I won't be making the same mistake as before, especially when it comes to "arrogating sysop actions" and furthermore, trying to bring admins to see things I can easily ignore. I have brought my case up on wikipedia as well and people are looking into it so as to unban me there. I'm sorry for trying to fulfill the duties of admins 8 months ago, and I have said this time and time again. I don't hold any hatred towards anyone here. I just want to continue using my original user name. Is that too much to ask for? I mean, how much longer must I wait...? Again, bare in mind that I am more than grateful that you are giving me your time and patience and I wholeheartedly respect all the people who are sharing their thoughts on the matter, but I really want to be able to login again. - 05:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that before we decide whether or not to give Zarbon another trial, we should probably do a CheckUser on the following usernames and IPs to see what if any relationship they have:

I would prefer that Aphaia do this CU, as I was the lead investigator of the last one and should get a new set of eyeballs on this situation.

I'm sure this sounds rather circumstantial to many. There is no clear tie to Zarbon among these new users. But this follows a pattern of multiple-user edit warring over fictional-subject articles that has plagued at least three wiki projects (WQ, WP, simple English WP) in the past year. It is certainly possible that this is not another outbreak of Zarbon-like manufactured conflict. It certainly hasn't gotten very far so far. But I would be negligent not to warn the community of the signs of another extended problem developing.

Anyone who hasn't participated in these investigations of odd but seemingly innocent interaction would be well-advised to read the copious material gathered on Wikiquote, Wikipedia, Simple English Wikipedia, and Meta about Zarbon, Wiki-star, and the dozens of other aliases used by the warring factions (or pseudo-factions) before making any decisions about giving Zarbon another chance.

Those conflicts seemed to be as much about wasting the time of other editors, especially admins, as they were about article content fights. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to running a CU report prior to any reinstatement based on the suspicions articulated, but how conclusive do we need it to be to affect this particular editor? And what if this IP claiming to be Zarbon is not clearly tied to these other accounts? BD2412 T 13:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We cannot prove there is no tie at all - it is a diabolic proof, which no one can give. The suggested CU may mean therefore if it support the suspicion, we are likely to lift it up. Otherwise, it is meaningless to run CUs on these accounts I think. How do you think, folks?
I am now at my parents, and my own laptop has no connection. Of course I can run CU in this circumstance, but I prefer to handle this issue after back to my usual environment. So I am willing to perform the suggested CUs but not for now, in days. If there is a problem, I think it okay Jeff Q run the checks immediately. --Aphaia 14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the mood of leniency from participants thus far, I'd really rather wait for Aphaia than run the CUs myself. I want to minimize any appearance of conflict of interest in case of findings that tie Zarbon to these others or expose other activity he hasn't mentioned. He has waited for months to resume his appeal; he should be able to wait another week or so. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to wait, but please be notified that the last time a CU was conducted, you referred to the help of one "Drini", who inaccurately placed me under some hooligans. I am still sickened and annoyed about this because I clearly stated what sockpuppetry, if any, I had committed. Like I said, the ONLY sockpuppet I have ever made is "Dodoria" and that was not even here, that was on wikipedia. I am still trying to be unbanned from wikipedia for this one mistake. However, the fact that I have no connection with imbeciles who go into pages and create revert wars and vandalisms is more than obvious. Why would I spend hours putting in material just to delete it...that is stupid and nonsensical. This person wiki-star or whatever he is kept following me from wikipedia and reverting and vandalizing any contributions I made here. It's great that measures were taken against him. However, to include me in his mindless moronic behavior is what annoyed me. And for someone like this Drini fellow to actually even dare to lie about a checkuser is what annoyed me most of all. I have no reason to lie. Do another checkuser, tie my ip address with my user name, so you will be more than certain that I am who I am, and I am not other people. Please, be aware that if I were to login to my user name, I'd only be doing so with this ip address just so that you can all be moreso satisfied at tracking my activity. This is my only ip address that I am about to mark with tildes. I hope that this is the last time I have to prove myself to you and that I am unbanned following this checkuser. - 17:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I've heard from Aphaia that she is quite involved in some real-world tasks. Since this situation needs significant, careful work and analysis, I'll take the load off her and tackle it myself. (As usual, I'll copy her on the results.) This time we won't have to worry about partial information; all the data will be available to both Aphaia and myself. If there have been any misapprehensions about Zarbon, we have a better chance to clear them up now. I hope to have some results in a day or two. (I'm a little busy myself, but I'll manage.) Sorry for the delay. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if for any reason I was rough in my sentiments in the beginning of this thread. I just wanted to point out that I am a very honest person and haven't lied once to you yet. So when you do get the chance to run this checkuser or whatever other course of action you need to take, please do it thoroughly so you are proven that I am who I am. I just want you to be convinced about who I am and the fact that I genuinely want to continue working under my user name. Thanks again and I don't mean to have caused any trouble by rushing you along or anything of that sort. I just miss being able to login. Your taking initiative is honestly much appreciated. Thank you very much Jeffq. - 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say that it's taking me quite a while to be accurate and thorough on this CU, partly because of my real-world schedule. I am hoping to finish the actual data collection by Friday, and the analysis within a day or two after that. Thank you all for your patience. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A question came to mind - generally in Wikimedia project is it a custom not to let banned users to "escape banning", that is, not to allow them to edit even anonymously? Is this common sense contradict to the current issue in which we are urged by this anon to take this plea and consider if we lift it? Honestly I feel, to urge admins repeatedly has nothing to do build a collection of quotations and only annoyance. --Aphaia 16:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Zarbon's defense, he has been adding a lot of material. Granted it is unsourced material in a very narrow field, but is constructive rather than destructive of the project. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously going to pretend that I did not read that just now Aphaia. For someone like me, who has been very patient, I am not going to discredit myself by replying in any form of disrespect. Please carry on with the process, JeffQ. - 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply], Aphaia's point is valid. Wikiquote is, I believe, more than usually tolerant and forgiving of people who have been banned elsewhere (as Zarbon has) but have made arguably useful edits here. We tend to judge primarily on what happens here. But we have a very credible report that ties Zarbon to considerable disruption and block evasion, which is effectively what you are now doing. My reason for calling for a CU is to attempt, now that we have access to private data in-house, to do four things:
  1. Separate the old edit warring over arguably useful information from clearly malicious efforts.
  2. Determine if you and Zarbon have at worst been merely unwise in your persistence, for understandable reasons.
  3. Detemine if you and Zarbon are the same person.
  4. Verify that no new malicious editing is tied to either you or Zarbon.
That's a lot to do for the sake of assuming good faith. Zarbon's striking VfD votes, claiming to have special authority from sysops (e.g., "I've been given the right to 3rr."), and other provocative actions, after I repeatedly asked him to calm down and stop engaging the troublemakers, got him blocked (by me) for his own ongoing disruptions. Even if the ultimate tie to a well-known cross-project vandal was in error, this kind of unhelpful disruption is often enough to convince a community that any material the user provides isn't worth the hassle of trying to deal with someone who simply won't follow policies, practices, and advice.
I am looking forward to completing this review of old and new data, so that I can either confirm the original decision or recommend that you be allowed to resume (at least provisionally) editing under a username. (Of course, having to write this response has delayed it that much further.) But you must realize that your persistence approaches trolling, and it is understandable that reasonable editors might think it best to have you stop editing until we have the results of the CU analysis. A statement like "I am seriously going to pretend that I did not read that just now Aphaia", only serves to remind us all that Zarbon, not Aphaia, was one of the offending parties in the past, and as you claim to be Zarbon, it is exactly the opposite of respectful. I strongly suggest that the less you opine here before the results are in, the better. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you like me to do, not voice myself at all...I mean how else am I supposed to convey myself to you if you don't want me to say it here. I mean, I posted this on admin talk pages for 8 months straight and I was pretty much ignored. I'm not being disrespectful. Do you see me cursing or discriminating against anyone here? I don't think so...and when it comes to conduction of the CU effort, I have no malicious intent, I AM Zarbon, so I don't need to identify myself as someone else, and I already apologized about any prior incident where I had said anything like "I've been given the right to 3rr". I don't want to be annoying. On the contrary, I want to continue working with my user name is all I want to do. Once I am allowed to continue with my user name, I will be happy. I am going to allow you to finish this CU, although it has been a long time that this thread has been opened also, approximately 11 days. I don't it that much of a problem to simply unban my name so I can resume my contributions with my name. I mean, is that too much to ask for...? Please, please just try your best to unban me, I really want to continue with my user name. - 17:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attestations, however fervent, don't mean anything. One must remember that there is no way for others to know what is in your head and obvious to you. We've learned the hard way here that people can masquerade as just about anything for extended periods of time, if they're clever enough. That's an inescapable fact of the Internet age.
However, just to let the community know, I emailed the registered address of User:Zarbon, requesting he confirm that he is, and I received his response by my own non-public email address (via the standard "E-mail this user" link). I also received (without prompting) a post from to this effect on my talk page only 4 minutes later. Since both our addresses are private and I didn't warn anyone about this email, I've confirmed that either is Zarbon, or they are communicating closely. I added that last bit to be absolutely clear on the possibilities, but I am quite satisfied that we're talking only to Zarbon here. That takes care of step 3 above. I'm mostly done with two other steps, so I'm almost done with the data gathering, and the analysis shouldn't take long. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



After a horribly long investigation, in which I re-examined what evidence remains from the earlier Zarbon situation, and new editing that resembled some of the conflicts in that old situation, I've determined the following:

  • Our anonymous colleague is indeed Zarbon.
  • Bill Hart has no clear connection to the old conflict, but is almost certainly indefinitely blocked, cross-project harrasser Brian Barbera, and is definitely new harrasser Andrew Monahan. This user has engaged solely in provoking arguments, editing others' user posts and pages, and responding flippantly to requests to avoid this bad-faith editing, indicating that he has no interest in constructively contributing to Wikiquote or any other Wikimedia project. He should be indefinitely blocked on sight as an unrepentant troll.
  • None of the other participants in the newer conflict over Barney & Friends appears to be editing maliciously. (I didn't CU anyone besides the three users interacting with Bill Hart, but all of the data thus far suggests that these people were all innocent victims.)

Zarbon's history here — refusing to follow Wikiquote policies and practices, ignoring advice, evading blocks to make his case, confusing or misrepresenting information given to him, etc. — on the surface does not encourage an assumption of good-faith editing. HOWEVER, it's obviously quite frustrating to be accused of being part of the malicious sockpuppetry to which IDENTITYCONFIRM and Wiki-star seemed to be deliberately tying him, and of which Cspurrier's earlier CU analysis strongly indicated he was a part. I now believe that the strongly circumstantial evidence connecting Zarbon to these confirmed vandals was just that — only circumstantial — and that the vandals worked hard to implicate Zarbon unfairly. (CU analysis has its limitations; I believe Cspurrier's conclusions were reasonable and in good faith, but not sufficiently condemning to maintain this block in light of subsequent Zarbon activity.)

I therefore believe we should allow Zarbon to resume editing under his username. I would ask for community input, but given that this is a holiday period for many, that there seems a good bit of community desire for this already, and that Zarbon is obviously very anxious for speedy resumption, I am unblocking him immediately. If there are any problems or questions about this, please post them here or on my talk page.

Thank you all for your patience in this protracted investigation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have little idea what the CU process entails, having not been involved in it myself, but thanks for all the extensive checking that has gone into this (and all your work elsewhere as well). As I have stated myself, I have often found many of this user's edits irritating, and at times been inclined to believe he or she was being maliciously deceptive, but had never perceived that there was any absolutely convincing evidence on the matter. Hopefully the edits made will continue to be mostly responsible ones. ~ Kalki 11:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for detailed analysis, Jeff Q. With your extensive (received by email, as usual) which includes each IP addresses and related data, I endorse your analysis as well as judgment. I'd appreciate all who concerned this issue on this project.
As stated, I would hereby like the community to aware the analysis given by a CU is determination, not the fact itself - so there is a possibility of misrepresentation, which is suggested as such in this case. We could have said to reject the request, regarding the worse case which the earlier review suggested. While I don't welcome the past deeds from User:Zarbon, I think however the latest unblocking by Jeff Q is fine, an admin action based on our central guideline WQ:AGF. I don't think it was a bad decision to block those accounts at that time, rather reasonable, but if there is a possibility which makes us doubt the past basis of our logic - so it benefits all the involved parties to give one try to do things in a different way.
Also I'd specially thank our anonymous coeditor for his patience. While I do not welcome every his deed during this request, it could be called patience, specially compared with his past way of raising issues. Hopefully the coming edits rewards this decision in a positive way. --Aphaia 12:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that he has been an enthusiastic contributor of late, so is entitled to the benefit of any possible doubt, not to mention AGF. Obviously, he is liable to be blocked again if anything funny happens, but I hope it won't and that he will continue to edit constructively.--Cato 20:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name change


I wish to change my username to CJMiller, to allow nomenclaturial conformity across all Wikimedia projects. CJ Miller. (That's my name.Don't wear it out.) 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, so link to your account here please? I have no access to Wikipedia b'crat interface ... --Aphaia

How do you list a page for re-deletion?


Team Fortress 2 was deleted once but has been re-created. What's the mechanism for a second VfD? Or is it suitable for a speedy? (I tried to use PROD but the editor removed it.)--Cato 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion case G2 ("Already Deleted") applies to this. Speedy it. --Ubiquity
… and I already deleted the already deleted article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll do that in future.--Cato 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]