Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/010

< Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard


A Username chenge request declined

edit

Based on CU results, I declined the request from user:Wikiholic submitted on my user talk. The details were sent to Kalki and JeffQ. Having their feedback hopefully, I'll give a further report here. Thanks for your attention. --Aphaia 15:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a consult with JeffQ, we think we found a series of malicious activities behind this requester. With IP addresses got as CU results, we combined this user with AFUSCO who the community agreed deserved a permanent blocking. Jeff Q made some sysop actions in relation to these CU results, I hope he gives further reports. --Aphaia 13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delay in reporting on this situation. As Aphaia said, the CU indicated that Wikiholic is a sockpuppet not only of AFUSCO, but of Ilikepie, Alextheman, TIPSTER, and many other names. He has a pattern of using some of them to vandalize, some to post friendly or supposedly helpful messages, and some to do very basic maintenance work, apparently in an attempt to establish credibility. He also has a habit of appearing to unaware of some basic wiki principles while doing edits elsewhere that show significant knowledge. We have done several CUs in the past half-year when blocks on his underlying IPs were released and he resumed his multiple-personality editing, and each one revealed the connections.
A troubling complication in this situation is that there is (or was) a Wikipedian "AFUSCO", who has since been renamed to "Alexfusco5". This user has apparently done considerable good work in the past few months, although I see some of the same hijinks (e.g., calling himself an administrator [1], [2]) in his history.
Assuming good faith, one might think AFUSCO/Alexfusco5 was simply not aware of Wikipedia policies and has since grown to become a valued contributor. He's even earned a number of barnstars for his considerable amount of anti-vandalism editing. Perhaps our like-named vandal merely adopted this good Wikipedian's name after getting annoyed at him. (I found at least one instance of Alexfusco warning the IP behind our AFUSCO/Wikiholic on Wikipedia.) But I keep running into peculiar behavior that increases my suspicions of the WP Alexfusco5:
  • Another Wikipedian suspecting sockpuppetry because a new user somehow found his way to WP:RFA and immediately nominated Alexfusco5 for adminship, which Alexfusco5 quickly turned down (saying he didn't plan to request adminship until May, presumably 2008).
  • Alexfusco5's similar nomination of GreaterWikiholic (now known as Marlith), which Marlith also turned down.
  • The oddity that Alexfusco5 moved both his and GreaterWikiholic's old user-talk page archives, within a few minutes of each other, after their name changes.
  • Alexfusco5's recurring problems with folks complaining about his hasty reversions and accusations of vandalism (like w:User talk:Alexfusco5/Archive 5#Your warning on my page), apparently because he uses a program and focuses primarily (if not solely) on the edit summaries and changes in size. This is a questionable way to vandal-patrol, but an effective way if one is rushing to achieve enough positive notoriety that one can stand for adminship. (Alexfusco5 seems to have no interest in anything but anti-vandalism, much like our AFUSCO did no editing of articles here.)
As far as connecting our and WP's AFUSCO, there are so many parallels (all those above, his first editing being a self-nomination for adminship, the smileys apparently adopted from Marlith, the odd mix of experience and apparent naivete, and others I'm keeping private to help spot likely sockpuppets) that if this is an imposter, it's the most thorough job of posing that I've seen. I'm virtually certain, even without a Wikipedia CU, that our AFUSCO is Wikipedia's as well.
The more time I spend on this, the odder it gets. My WP case is circumstantial for now, so I would like to discuss this further with their admins to see if an investigation there would be appropriate. But I just don't have the time to chase cross-project problems right now. If we're going to pursue this, we ought to have better than my anecdotal citatations above, which are challenging to collect because the WP editors are so prolific and the relevant WP discussion pages (e.g., RFA, SUSPSOCK) and their voluminous archives so buried in the massive bureaucracy there.
For now, I'm sticking solely to Wikiquote concerns. In my opinion, the person behind these edits has shown no real intention of contributing to this project, and has shown an unfathomable but consistent commitment to disrupting activities here by sowing confusion using sockpuppets. Therefore, I believe that his requests for unblocking, name changes, or other actions that might help him to do more editing here, should not be honored. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As usual Jeff, an immensely thorough piece of work. I support your conclusion.--Cato 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--Poetlister 20:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote New Page Submission Error

edit

I don't know if this error is just for me, but I attemped to create a new Wikiquote page for Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween and when I saved it, it said I needed to type in a code (so spammers can't spam Wikiquote). The image for the code never appeared, and I've tried multiple times to refresh the page but the image simply won't appear, so I could never submit the new page.

Can someone help me? I didn't know where else to post this so I decided to post it here. I was hoping one of you could have the answer or anything? In the meantime, I'll try and correct the problem, but I just wanted to let an admin know.

Ismael Cruz 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are some browsers where the necessary images do not show up. I don't know what browser you normally use, but I suggest trying another for this task, as some incompatibility with it and the software here could be responsible. ~ Kalki 00:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I use Internet Explorer. I guess I'll try and download another browser or something. Thank you, I'll let you know if there are still some problems. Ismael Cruz 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think any recent versions of Internet Explorer would have no problems, so something else might be the cause. I almost always use a Macintosh, but have tried many browsers, and I knew some of those I've tried don't work well with the wiki-software. ~ Kalki 00:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried creating a page (in my user space) while not logged in, using Internet Explorer 6.0. I didn't see any request for a code. Ismael, could you describe the exact circumstance (computer, operating system, IE version, article title) in which you're seeing this problem, so I can try to duplicate it? You can use the "E-mail this user" link on my page (in the left margin) if you'd prefer to send these details privately. Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will only appear for ips and non-auto confirmed editors with external links 66.90.73.56 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I tried it as an anonymous editor, not logged in. I didn't get anything stopping me from saving my edit. I didn't try saving something in the main namespace, though. Is this mechanism so clever that it doesn't screen anything but article-space edits? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you include the address of an external site?--Cato 22:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WelcomeBot

edit

I've just noticed the Wikiquote:Welcome log. It says that it moves to a new page every day. However, it clearly doesn't; there is only one page for December and one for November. Is it that all the new users are being welcomed manually?--Cato 10:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have importing rights here now

edit

I would like to invite all admins to discuss at Wikiquote:Village_pump#I_have_importing_rights_here_now. Only Mike.lifeguard, an admin on Wikibooks but not here, has responded to my talks, but I do need more opinions about importing. Otherwise, I have to stop importing while the issue to which namespace needs discussion.--Jusjih 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of Rush Limbaugh

edit

Can we get a protection up on Rush Limbaugh because of constant reversions by what appears to be a single IP. He has not engaged in good faith discussions on the talk page, in the village pump, has blanked my comment on his talk page informing him of those discussions. It is clear that this person needs a reminder on exactly what community consensus is, that being having to actually engage others in conversation and debate. -- Greyed 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a long look at the page and the history of the struggle between you and 69.64.213.146 (talk · contributions). Unfortunately, I think he's right. Though I personally find the quote in question disgusting and in terrible taste, I couldn't find any policies that indicated that was grounds for exclusion. The quote is about Limbaugh (the fact that it's from a comedy routine doesn't matter), is by a reasonably notable person (Bill Hicks), and, although not cited properly, has a reliable printed source (Bill Hicks (2004). Love All the People: Letters, Lyrics, Routines. Soft Skull Press. pp. p. 203. ). Although the quote is an attack (and an ad hominen one at that), Rush is a public figure and it's not actionable to attack him. I don't think the page needs a lot of these, but I think it can stand one. I stopped short of adding the quote back to the page myself (it is pretty disgusting), but I think next time it appears you should fix its citation rather than removing the quote.
I will keep an eye on the page in the future to try to ensure that these sorts of edit wars don't get out of hand. Really, I would love to get rid of the quote, or slap 69.64.213.146 (talk · contributions) on the wrist for not engaging you in a legitimate discussion, but in this case and at this point I don't think those actions would be appropriate. --Ubiquity 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

edit

Hi. His full name is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, not "Mahesh Yogi". Every part of this name is a kind of a title. So either you call him as he is called worldwide by friends and critics or you call him not at all. Please correct the Lemma according to every other Wikipedia article worldwide on this topic. --Josha52 12:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this with the reason "match WP" --Ubiquity 12:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Josha52 12:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Account Cancellation

edit

I would like to have my account deleted for privacy reasons. Is this possible? Blah 19:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to remove all trace of it. I can, however, delete your talk page and it is also possible to re-name your account if that would help.--Cato 20:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User made the request below on my talk page; can someone please rename the account.--Cato 20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to [[3]], yes, could you please do that? That is, delete my talk page and rename my account to avist or lemons. Thanks! - Blah 08:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have performed the renaming of this account. ~ Kalki 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range block needed

edit

IPs from range 165.21.154.xxx keep vandalising Naruto. What is the procdure for making a range block?--Cato 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No procedure right now? WQ:BP#Range blocks doesn't say much more than "When used, range blocks should be as brief as possible". And I am not sure if it is necessary right now: you semiprotected the page and no further disruption has come after that ...
And if we are going to block a range, while our policy say nothing about how range can be broad, I think the wide of range should be as narrow as possible. So in this case, it may be the narrowest range which include IP addresses 165.21.154.xx from 74 to 117. --Aphaia 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville

edit

This page is now 618kB. Firstly, that could crash a PC; can it be split into smaller articles easily? Secondly, is there a danger of copyvio?--Cato 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they deserves to keep, better to split, I think.
If they deserves to keep is a question. The amount of quotes per episode seems to me acceptable (e.g. doesn't show the whole copy), but IANAL of course. But more seriously, I failed to see some parts of quotability. Are those quotes really quoted in the American life? Hardly to be convinced ... --Aphaia 00:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smallville, like so many of our TV-show articles, is in serious violation of our informal guideline on keeping quotes down to 3-5 pithy quotes per episode to avoid copyright violation. Even this guideline doesn't legally protect us, as Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group amply demonstrated even with "facts" about Seinfeld, never mind obviously copyrightable quotes. All it does is reduce our legal visibility, which may be of little help in avoiding the fate of the original French Wikiquote when the first show copyright holder sues Wikimedia.
What's more, I don't even have to read Smallville to know that it is filled with scene transcriptions which, instead of representing the best sets of powerful words, are merely plot-advancement descriptions and stuff that no one can appreciate without watching or listening to the show itself. (I don't have to read it because I've weeded out many examples of that in the past from this and other articles. But if pressed, I'll delete much of what I'm talking about from at least 3 randomly selected episodes to make my point, which would not violate WP:POINT because it's a necessary bit of editing that we're just failing to do.)
It's pretty clear that many, if not most, of our TV-show contributors would prefer to make Wikiquote a transcription website if they could get away with it. Frankly, the lack of concern we show as a community to copyright problems is one of the key things that so frustrates me that I find myself less interested in contributing these days. I have no desire to be the hatchet man all the time in order to give our articles the focus on the special that they should have, but even if I were so motivated, it would take dozens like me, doing nothing but massive trimming, to even start to fix this problem.
I have no practical solution for this problem. But splitting articles into multiple copyvio articles is just about the worst thing we could do, just as it's been a bad idea for many that have been boldly split already. At least with a single article, we have some practical pressure to keep things pithy and word-oriented instead of scene-oriented. Splitting articles is nothing more than permission to make the copyvio problems many times worse. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm I may have been confused. "down to 3-5 pithy quotes"? I thought it was up to 10. Or I was confused with another type of media - like manga in books (not serial in magazine)? Anyway the point is its pithiness. If they fail to meet this criteria, even if they are within 3-5, they don't meet so we have no reason to keep them. I agree with you on the doubt if they are only using Wikiquote to collect "scene transcriptions", and I feel it a serious violation of our mission. Please remind, I said that they are better to split if they deserve to keep. If they are not, they should be rewritten or just go out. --Aphaia 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If they deserve to be kept" is an argument based on notability and a minimum amount of quotable material. TV shows listed in IMDb are nearly always considered notable, and the vast majority can probably summon up at least a handful of pithy quotes, so this is not a real screening test for 95+% of our TV-show articles. The only real issue is how large such an article should be allowed to get before it's split.
You will find a huge number of places where several long-time editors have talked about "3-5 quotes per episode", occasionally mentioning "maybe 8 quotes for rare episodes". I believe almost all references to "10 quotes per episode" have been made either by people who would really like to see 100 quotes if possible, and are allowing themselves to be argued down to 10, or by editors who are trying to stem the flow of excessive quoting but have not participated in the discussions at Wikiquote talk:Copyrights, where we make it clear that even the "3-5 quote" guideline is no guarantee of legal protection. Even this very tight guideline is frequently misinterpreted as an average, so that people feel justified to have 20 quotes in an episode if there are some episodes that have none. The problem is that each and every episode is a copyrighted work, so the test of substantial excerpting must be applied to each one. And frankly, I regret having suggested an "out" of "8 quotes per episode" for occasional shows, because it only allows each person to choose different episodes they feel deserve the extra quotes. This kind of bean-counting is far from pleasing in a creative work, but the problem is so serious that we need some objective guidelines like this even to try to fix the problem.
Mystery Science Theater 3000, an article I started and used to carefully monitor, was for several years our largest article. It is also prone to accumulating scene transcriptions, excessive quotes for popular episodes, and lots of material that only fans could even understand, let alone appreciate. For the longest time, I was the sole person weeding out this excessive quoting, although some others have made an attempt to keep up the work in the past year or so. It has 11 seasons, and 400-700 "riffs" or quips per episode. (Someone actually did a detailed statistical analysis on this — that's how rabid we MST3K fans are.) Most shows can't come close to this quantity of material. And yet, even with in its current state (which I'm sure has excess material in some episode), it's only 390KB. There are some shows, like The Simpsons, that have so many episodes that we probably can't avoid splitting them (although I suspect that if Matt Groening et al wanted to press a Seinfeld-like case against quoting even just 1% of their material, they'd win). But there are incredibly few shows with this problem.
The usual guideline for Wikimedia pages is 32KB before one should split them up. But the average web page size was already exceeding that number when Wikipedia was created. According to All Things Web's State of the Web (SOTW) surveys, page size was averaging 60KB as early as 1999, before broadband was common. In 2006, Optimization Week reported that the average size was up to 120KB. These days, Flash and other multimedia are so common that users' browsing expectations are set by much larger pages. I believe a primarily text-based site like Wikiquote can afford to have articles of several hundred KB, although I supposed 400KB may be pushing it too far.
However, since our community isn't putting forth even a modest fraction of the effort we need to truly reduce our copyvio problems, I feel we really need the alternate approach of using long pages to discourage editors from going overboard with quotes. When people start seeing their favorite pages rendered too slowly, we have at least some hope that we can encourage them to help us keep the articles focused on the most memorable lines instead of trying to catalog everything of the least interest. Splitting articles only subverts this prudent approach.
We must remember that part of the reason for our policies is to allow us to deal with contributions from editors who have little interest in knowing what Wikiquote's purposes are and why we have these policies. They're just here to add quotes. Nobody comes to Wikiquote to trim quotes. This natural imbalance must be compensated for, in a way that is practical for the number of editors who are actually doing the trimming (virtually none), and the size of our copyvio problem (huge). I've even been desparate enough to consider writing some AWB scripts to randomly remove quotes from monstrously long episodes in TV-show articles — that's how bad it is. We need to do much better than we are doing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smallville is easily our longest article. I'll go and chop some out now.--Cato 20:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal vandalism

edit

Previously blocked anon User:169.199.168.148 is currently on a vandalism spree, removing content and external links from articles. --Bradeos Graphon 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting this. I have blocked it again. If it persists, we may have to block for a year.--Cato 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity article

edit

Jake ellis has turned up in the recent changes. Is there a CSD tag on wikiquote I could use for this sort of thing, or do people prefer things listed here? --Bradeos Graphon 05:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article was deleted as I was posting the above question. As I'm new to Wikiquote, still let me know how I can be of assistance as a recent changes patroller. --Bradeos Graphon 05:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to tag an article for speedy deletion, you could use {{Template:Delete}}. Thanks for your assistance. - InvisibleSun 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the Richard III redirect a dab page, I hadn't thought of that. I'm still learning my way round, reading through the various pages of policy and discussion. Regards, --Bradeos Graphon 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd, and Eddy Vandalism

edit

User:65.67.67.33 has been making up non-canon love stories on several Ed, Edd, and Eddy quotes and one on the Boondocks (TV). Please revert the articles and block the user or send her a warning message because I want this vandalism to stop and for those articles to be purged of all nonsense.

Thanks. I've given the IP a formal warning.--Poetlister 13:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change request

edit

I want my user name changed to Congo. --Cosby 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been renamed, and an unsubstantiated claim relating to the previous username has been removed from the user page for "Congo". ~ Kalki 23:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism spree

edit

Previously blocked anon User:65.25.105.176 has been replacing content on multiple pages with quotes said to be from Tony Montana from the film Scarface. I've given a test2 and test3 already today. --Bradeos Graphon 19:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State IP vandalism

edit

I have just instituted a 1-month range block on 131.123.0.0/16, which is a Kent State University network. I know this seems excessive, but a Checkuser I just ran on this range shows that since at least 22 January 2008, nothing but nonsense edits have been coming from these addresses, and the quantity and pervasiveness of this vandalism made me feel this block was warranted, at least until we can contact KSU's IT department to see what they can do about stopping this activity. I'll report on this as events develop. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, Jeff noticed it weeks ago and took days to make a careful investigation. He would have liked then however to give them a chance to behave, with a full precaution for their further disruption. When I got his last mail about this concern, I said to Jeff that I wouldn't oppose him to block them, when and if he would think it necessarily. I endorse therefore his past actions about that and also his proposal for our further actions (contact KSU etc). --Aphaia 08:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There has definitely been an upsurge in idiotic time-and-life-wasting vandalism lately, of the sort one might expect from very maladjusted six-year olds; to think that some of it might actually be coming from people of college age who perceive so little else to do with their life is all the more appalling. I too support these measures. ~ Kalki 09:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can still remember university life and yes, a lot of students behave like six-year olds! No question this was needed.--Poetlister 13:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following my own investigations, I have reset the block to run for one month from today, anon only, account creation blocked.--Cato 12:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. I found enwiki block this kind of educational institute addresses for a long time in the same setting, like a year. Would we like to examine our current policy and consider to go to that direction? --Aphaia 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User rename

edit

I have renamed User:Cool Cat to User:White Cat per request on my talk page.--Poetlister 13:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for cross-project assistance with a problem user

edit

w:User:Hornetman16, apparently corresponding to User:Hornetman16 here, was banned from Wikipedia last summer for highly disruptive behavior and sockpuppetry. He has continued to sock almost nonstop since then, and repeated promises of reform have come to nothing.

It now appears, per a discussion on the Wikipedia admins' noticeboard, that he has escalated to cross-wiki disruption. He has bugged Alison about his ban on other wikis, including non-English speaking projects (in English, no less). He has also resorted to cross-wiki canvassing (see this thread on the Simple English Wiki admin board and request to send other users to Wikipedia to vouch for him).

Per this cross-wiki disruption, I ask that corrective action be taken against him here on Wikiquote. Blueboy96 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) (Wikipedia administrator, please leave messages on my talkpage there.)[reply]

Hornetman16 has made 14 logged-in edits in total here (plus a handful not logged in). They don't seem disruptive to me.--Cato 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although his edits don't seem very productive (6 edits on main namespace, most of them are sort of housekeeping), I agree with Cato they don't look disruptive, and rather helpful. Unless there is advisory from the higher position (like the Office, Board or whatsoever) or disruptive sockpuppetry on this project by the same person, I'm so far reluctant to block this account. --Aphaia
I asked English Wikipedia CUs for information and opinion. Until getting their replies, I'd rather expect our team to keep an eye on this account, not make a prompt action. The current situation is too vague to take an appropriate action in my humble opinion.--Aphaia 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Cato and Aphaia on this matter. This is consistent with English Wikiquote practice of not taking action against editors who have been involved in problems elsewhere but not here, unless they present an immediate threat to the project, or we are urged to do so by the Foundation or its representatives. I understand Alison and others' exhausted patience with this young editor, but we've had similar editors here who eventually manage to absorb and accept the goals and principles of the project. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reedy Boy to User:Reedy

edit

Hi, Is it possible for you to change my username from User:Reedy Boy to User:Reedy, as i am having it changed on the english wikipedia, and want to get the rest of my accounts inline for the single user login

Thanks


Reedy Boy 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Aphaia 15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Reedy 15:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usurpation request

edit

I'd like to usurp user:Brett. The user has but a single four-year-old edit. Although I am new to Wikiquote, I am an admin with over 6000 edits on Simple English Wiktionary.--BrettR 12:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that you can usurp an account with even one edit.--Cato 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can. You just rename the old account to something new, which frees up the name without destroying credit for the edit. BD2412 T 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. Technically, it's possible. The question is whether it will be allowed and accepted. It's already been done for me on wikibooks, meta, and commons. --BrettR 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it is possible. For courtesy I don't think we should accept this request. It might be nice for you but not for the person whose account would be usurped. I recommend you to contact the editor and ask his or her permission before request. I know there are both the projects which accept this kind of requests and the project which generally reject the same kind of requests. We have no policy yet so I think we need to build consensus before taking an action. Thanks. --Aphaia 09:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention, Aphaia. I'll put a request on user:Brett's talk page. Could we say that if there is no response in a week that you would rename that user, thus opening the account for me?--BrettR 11:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe this request, and this outcome, is similar to the one we had recently in Wikiquote:Votes for deletion where someone (BD2412 I think, though I can't find the log entry right now) wanted to delete an excessively large user page for a user who had made no edits (except for his excessively large user page). In this case, the user has made a single edit, four years ago, and that consisted of adding Family Guy to the List of television shows. I think that the policy of actually consulting affected user is a good one, and in fact I'd like to suggest that the wait time be one month. I know this will inconvenience you, BrettR, but I think one or two weeks is just too short -- someone who's on holiday or simply very busy AFK for a week could easily miss such a notice. One month's notice gives us much more confidence that the user has indeed lost interest.
    I also note that wikibooks asked you to verify that you were indeed the same Brett as the one on Simple English Wiktionary. Since you already did this, we don't need to ask, but I think it should definitely be part of our usurpation policy.
    By the way, what should we rename the old Brett account? TheEditorFormerlyKnownAsBrett? --Ubiquity 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate you're referring to is Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Wordsurged, where the user's only edit was to create a user page that was a cut-and-paste copy of an existing article. Quite frankly, I have a gut certainty that someone who made a single edit in 2004 has, by now, forgotten that they ever signed up for a Wikiquote account. Is there not some way to see if this person has even bothered to log in within, say, the past year? BD2412 T 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oddly enough, there was a four year gap between my first and second wikipedia edits -- and my first edit was simply adding a name to a list, as was Brett's. During that time I was an active wikipedia reader, I just hadn't gotten up the nerve to edit. (I think I was overly intimidated by the charge If you do not want your contribution to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.) I believe I would have been anguished had someone been able to usurp the ubiquity user name without even contacting me.
        If there is a log of read accesses, I'd support using that to determine when Brett last accessed WQ, but I don't believe there is. --Ubiquity 15:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is such a log, I can't find it even as a checkuser.--Cato 21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current Wikipedia policy, allows usurpation of an account if the bureaucrat chooses to, the username wasn't created in the last 6 months, has no log entries, and has no edits to the mainspace that require GFDL attribution. See w:WP:CHU/U and the archives for usurpation request handling. It might also be a good idea to contact WJBscribe who handles the majority of rename requests on Wikipedia. H2O: Just Add Water 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking. Their policy is theirs, not ours. Wikipedia doesn't rule us. --Aphaia 22:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I should have been more clear, I was just providing a example of how Wikipedia handles usurpations, sorry if I was unclear. I think the bureaucrat's of this wiki should make a guideline regarding this because after SUL got instated there may be quite a few requests (or at least there has been an increase on Wikipedia). Cheers H2O: Just Add Water 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks for giving references. Currently we have no policy and as the above, no consensus if such usurpation is allowed. Aa a b'crat I think I must carry it out based on the community consensus, not sole on my discretion. At least I'd like to wait for my two b'crat colleagues to give their opinion about that. I don't expect we can build up a new policy within 7 days, so I think we need at least to confirm what is the trend here. Hopefully it won't harm to call for opinion from those who will carry it out actually. --Aphaia 16:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention. Currently awaiting outcome.--BrettR 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - I was elsewhere. I think bureaucrats have to use their discretion. If someone has recently made a good number of useful edits, they should not be usurped. If they made two edits three years ago and nothing since, I would have little hesitation in allowing the usurpation. However, the potential usurper would need a good reason (proof that they have established accounts in that name elsewhere) and should put a notice on the account's user page and if possible e-mail them. BrettR seems to be an established user elsewhere and I am minded to accept his request.--Poetlister 12:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today is 16th and the request was submitted on March 26. The user being affected was noticed in the same day. I think we'll want to conclude this request one month later than the start day, by April 26? --Aphaia 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate many disputes on these matters in the weeks or months to come, as eventually there will be Single-user login names used by everyone on all the Wikimedia projects. I believe this request should be granted, and where a clear case can be made that the individual in question is or will be the possessor of the unified log-in name, such re-naming should be routine.
Usurpation of accounts with no edits should probably be pretty much automatic, and for those with very few and/or very old edits it should probably be standard procedure to grant the request. Where there are active editors with disputed names there should be some sort of dialogue on re-naming of the active accounts, but I think that there should be strong recommendations to advance toward the Single user system, for the eventual benefit of everyone. ~ Kalki 16:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to me. A message (since mail cannot be available) and 3 week waiting is fair enough in my opinion; specially in this case (no copyrightable edit, user has been inactive for a long time). So we'll accept this request by consensus? Later we'll need to write down some for more generic purposes, though. --Aphaia 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus it is.--Poetlister 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request fulfilled. --Aphaia 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usurp vandalism only account.

edit

I got a message on my talkpage on en.wiki that someone had created a vandalism only account under my en.wiki username. The account is User:Martijn Hoekstra, and has now been indefblocked here. Is it possible for me to take over that account? 213.132.174.10 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, could you please make an edit on your talk of the wiki you are Martijn Hoekstra, indicate you are requesting for usurpation and give us a link here? Thanks! --Aphaia 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sure. 62.194.248.58 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. --Aphaia 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you've got an account here, may as well do some editing! BD2412 T 06:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I later noticed it was a part of crosswiki sysop impostor vandalism, warned on checkuser-l. There are a lot of IP addresses used for this series of vandalism, and I am not sure if we blocked all relevant IP addresses (most of them are determined to be open proxies or highly doubted). Blocking known open proxies may help us to reduce this kind of disruptions. --Aphaia 09:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a way to do a cross-wiki block of a particularly virulent IP address. Sort of like SUL, but SIPB. BD2412 T 07:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote to Bugzilla:8707 :-) --Aphaia 12:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I actually reported it as a new bug, which was struck as a duplicate of 8707. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unified login reminder

edit

For all admins, you are invited to join the test of unified login feature, which can be done at Special:MergeAccount. See m:Help:Unified login for further information. --Aphaia 18:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. It failed, because apparently my main account is on the smaller of the two Norwegian Wikipedias.--Cato 21:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It worked perfectly for me. I'm too paranoid about my own account security to share my observations on the process publicly, but if anyone wants to hear them, drop me an email. I will say that I logged into one project I'd never registered on, and it worked beautifully. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Cato, weird. But while I tried from this project, the system said my home was meta. They have somehow twisted ideas to determine people's home ... and it seems irrelevant where is your home and if your scattered accounts are unified. --Aphaia 05:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe S:MA is considering your home to be the project on which you've done the most editing? en:WQ was my second Wikimedia project, but S:MA reasonably treated it (where I have the most edits) instead of en:WP (my first, but with only about 60% as many edits) as my home project. Might it also take elevated privileges on a project as a factor? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Aphaia: not weird. There is a User:Cato (or to be precise, Brukar:Cato) on that Wiki; it just isn't me. As Brukar:Cato is an admin there, I doubt that they'd let me usurp the name!--Cato 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Cato: I see. Hope name conflict resolution is not painful for you two.
To Jeff: Perhaps. I assume the first consideration might be the access privilege, and then edit count. If they had chosen the latter at first, it would have been somewhere else for me where I have 30K+ edits but no admin. --Aphaia 00:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My primary account is the WP one, although I have more edits and of course more privileges here. Still, there are more bureaucrats and checkusers who support me on WP than here!--Poetlister 12:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried it successfully with English Wikipedia as the home Wiki.--Jusjih 04:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to know that no one can ever again abscond with one of our usernames on a different project. Cheers! BD2412 T 09:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Projects Interview

edit

There is an interview of various sister projects going on with administrators or other high-level users from other projects. Wikiquote is missing a representative and I am sure that one of you would do great! Cbrown1023 talk 01:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I signed on their list. On several projects not only one but some number of people are going to talk, I would love you to sign up too. It may benefits both them and us, to promote our diversity. And Cbrown1023, you seem to forget you are also a good interviewee candidate :D --Aphaia 01:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Wiki vandal IPs

edit

Some recent vandalism has been due to a cross-wiki vandal. I have blocked the underlying IPs (71.107.134.88 and 71.108.64.207) for 30 days.--Cato 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi's Castle

edit

This article has repeatedly been vandalised by IP editors, so I semi-protected it. New user:Jam dean reverted to a vandalised version. A checkuser shows that it used one of the vandalising IPs, so I have indef blocked.--Cato 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Albert Einstein

edit

I just removed vandalism from Albert Einstein from two separate users in two separate places. Could someone please review to make sure the page does not contain any more inappropriate jokes? Shalom 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shalom. I see Silver Surfer has already finished the clean-up. I have added the page to my watch list.--Cato 18:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch anons

edit

From Recent changes:

N 17:37 User talk:83.82.53.211 (diff; hist) . . (+220) . . Aphaia (Talk | contribs | block) (New page: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalising Wikiquote. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.--Aphaia 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
N 17:36 User talk:84.105.206.183

83.82.53.211 (talk · contributions) and 84.105.206.183 (talk · contributions) came from different ISPs but both located in Netherlands. They share a same edit pattern - no quote Dutch encyclopedic stubs. Please keep your eyes on them. I protected one article frequently recreated to prevent re-creation (no quotes were posted by now). --Aphaia 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protecting highly visible templates

edit

Hi, we received an email (2008041710040224) through OTRS of someone that was kinda wondering if the huge goatse picture they found at the bottom of the Anchorman was intended. It appears that our very Grawp is playing with your templates, such as Template:Rotten-tomatoes. Since the help requested on IRC was not helpful, I'm asking here: can you please (please, please) semi protect the highly visible templates that were targeted by this persistent vandal? I'm pretty sure the image of an anus on approximately 1000 pages is something we don't wish to make easier to do. Thank you very much! Lucasbfr 22:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no recent vandalism of the templates here — not since the first of April — but we probably should fully protect all the most widely used templates. ~ Kalki 23:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{Rotten-tomatoes}} was vandalised a short time ago with an ASCII representation of the goatse.cx image (not work safe nor particularly pleasent, if you're not aware of the image). I made a similar request at WQ:VP btw. Nick 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was part of a set of template vandalizing (now reverted) committed by a single individual, a cross-project vandal who has now been blocked (along with his IP and several sockpuppet usernames). We'll keep an eye out for similar attacks as well. Thanks for the heads-up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mistaken. There was vandalism of several templates, but they were quickly reverted. ~ Kalki 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change username

edit

Can I have my username changed to Gary King please? I'm using that username on other Wikimedia projects. Gary King 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Poetlister 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought: For the user who requests for user name changing including usurpation

edit

How about?

When you request for changing your user name, please follow the format as below:

  • Your current user name: {{user|your name}}
  • Target name: {{user|their name}}

If you request for usurpation also, please use the format below instead and leave a message to the affected user on their talk page, and if possible, by wiki mail too.

  • Your current user name: {{user|your name}}
  • Target name: {{user|their name}}
  • Contact: Talk / Talk and Mail (select one)

If you requests for usurpation, your request may be fulfilled under one of the following conditions:

  1. the affected party agrees to rename
  2. the affected party did no significant edits for which their history should be retained for GFDL complaiance and at least two weeks pass from your message to the affected party without response.

Thoughts? --Aphaia 06:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People should definitely mail if mail is enabled (it often isn't). Is two weeks long enough?--Poetlister 11:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on that people have to be mailed, if technically it is enabled. I think however it is useful to have a talk page notice requirement, since we cannot detect if someone is mailed. I am not sure two weeks long enough, rather I think I proposed the minimum length of getting consensus on this project. I feel four weeks / a month a bit too much, but I won't disagree if someone strongly support. My personal preference may be around 3 weeks ... I cannot show what makes me think so though. --Aphaia 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing - usurpation of impostors. I think it can be an exception of the rule proposed on the above, and rely on b'crats' discretion? It is pointless to ask them for opinion, specially if they are already permanently blocked and obviously not considered as parts of community without nothing productive. --Aphaia 13:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with three weeks. As for impostors, yes, that's why b'crats are given discretion.--Poetlister 18:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed we have Wikiquote:Changing username. LOL. It was posted one year ago and I suppose most of us hasn't been aware of. I tried to reflect some bits of this discussion to there but it needs more attention. Anyone minds me moving this thread to its talk? --Aphaia 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

!! I had been aware of this page but forgot it. Yes, we should turn it into a workable policy.--Poetlister 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the discussion following may occur on Project talk:Changing username. --Aphaia 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vandal username

edit

Hello! Would it be possible to rename the account User:PatriciaR to something else? It shows up on the top ten Google hits when I search for my username. It's kind of embarrasing :D. This was a impostor vandal account. Cheers, PatríciaR 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed as User:Impostor renamed 20080418. Redirects were deleted. It is weird this talk is the 3rd Ghit for your user name [without accent acute though] ... it is not so much used elsewhere? --Aphaia 13:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is only a redirect from Commons (because when I first registered then, I did it without the accent, then asked for a rename), and an account on Meta to ask for a new IRC cloak (and even that had to be done by a local admin because the name is too close to my real one), which is redirected to my main account there... It's really weird! Anyway, my account is SULed and names that close to exiting accounts cannot be created now, so I won't have to worry about this any longer. Thanks for your help, cheers Patrícia msg 16:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

usurpation request — Jack Merridew

edit

I've primarily been active on en:wp - and I'll answer any questions about that if anyone likes. I've been harassed by en:wp's w:User:Grawp vandal and one form that's taken has been his creation of accounts on other wiki's using my preferred user name 'Jack Merridew'.

See wikt:Wiktionary:Changing username#User:JackMerridew TEMP → User:Jack Merridew where the same sort of thing's just been dealt with.

Cheers, JackMerridew TEMP 09:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC) a.k.a. David[reply]

re email; I've tried five times to get an email confirmation code that works; I've received them but none are accepted. nb: it's the same email account I use on all my wiki accounts.
Cheers, JackMerridew TEMP 10:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC) a.k.a. David[reply]
  • a minor follow-up; I requested an email confirmation code again (about the 7th) and this time it worked. I believe it was the just the passage of some time that allowed this to sort itself. I'll note that I don't believe I ever received the first one that should have been automatic; the ones I got were all from poking the request button; I didn't edit the email address, either. Anyway, sorted for me, but this may be a problem for others down the road. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These were Grawp; he used these same names on several other wikis on about the same days.
Cheers, JackMerridew TEMP 11:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC) a.k.a. David[reply]
Yes they are Grawp. CUs may have background information, so if feel necessary, sysops are welcome to ask for further details. --Aphaia 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

missing </a> on every page

edit 
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable organization"
title="Charitable organization">charity.<br /></li>

The footer of every page here contains the above code that needs to have an </a> added after 'charity' (the opening <li> is present somewhat earlier in the code). I don't know where to properly report this, so I'll note it here. Cheers, JackMerridew TEMP 10:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) a.k.a. David[reply]

The <br /> may be able to be omitted or be better placed after the </li>. Cheers, JackMerridew TEMP 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) a.k.a. David[reply]

Usurpe account User:Bayo

edit

Hello, i am an administrtor of the fr.wikipedia.org and i would like to usurpe the account Bayo (talk · contributions), to allow me to use SUL. This account never contribute, and i dont have account in en.wikiquote. So, is it possible to delete it ? Thanks a lot for your help. -wikipedia:fr:user:bayo (84.103.60.28) 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. It is hard to determine if it is an impostor or just a coincidence. Please notice him your request at his talk and see what happens in some weeks (see the discussion above). Thanks. --Aphaia 13:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This account never contribute. Is it need to talk with nobody ? But done. -wikipedia:fr:user:bayo (84.103.60.28 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Merci beaucoup: Would you please wait for the consequence for three weeks? --Aphaia 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no objection, usurpation is to be granted some time later than 18:50 May 5, 2008. --Aphaia 09:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks would be 12 May, though I would be willing to allow it now since the account has no edits.--Poetlister 21:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you are right. We now in the third week from this request, so the required three weeks aren't finished.
I am not sure if we want to make the rule complicated. But personally I feel the same: no problem may arise when we perform the request immediately. We'd separate cases for the accounts depending on how many and when the edits from those accounts? --Aphaia 05:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep three weeks in all cases so people know where they are.--Poetlister 11:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine ;) At least it reduces our workload <g>. --Aphaia 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account Bayo was renamed to User:Bayo (usurped). --Aphaia 04:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Yann

edit

Someone claiming to be User Yann on other projects has asked to usurp that name here. I have confirmed by e-mail that he is indeed the other User Yann and have left a note on User talk:Yann asking about usurpation. I propose to grant that after three weeks.--Poetlister 12:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Poetlister. Three weeks are fine to me (according to our previous discussion). Would we like to have a template to inform the involved user about usurpation? English Wikipedia seems to have such (I'm not however sure if we need the exactly same). --Aphaia 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reply has come yet. I think we can safely go to the next step, usurpation as requested. --Aphaia 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yann renamed to Yann (usurped).--Poetlister 11:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/010&oldid=2720444"