Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/012

Spanish people looks like an ultra-right wing, anti-Spanish racialist manifesto, whose sole purpose is to compare the Spanish to North Africans from a racial and genetic point of view. While I personally have nothing against North African peoples, it is clearly an attempt to denigrate Spaniards and highly improper. 23:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review maybe


This user has placed similar pages across many wikis now. I have deleted the same as "outside the scope" of Commons in the past week & I know other wikis have done the same. The community may wish to consider how appropriate it is. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg


Hi, Can someone update the meta logo on the main page per m:Meta:Babel/Wiki_logo. The new logo is Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg. Thanks 15:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for heading up! --Aphaia 17:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



I understand that a few weeks ago there was a brief controversy over the creation of user:Crum375 as an impersonation account of enwiki user Crum375. Wikipedia Review user "Guy" admitted to creating the account; we now know that Guy was Poetlister, now known as user:Quillercouch, and furthermore when Quadell blocked Crum375 as an impersonation account, Quillercouch unblocked it. There was clearly a lot of bad faith actions involved here, and probably a continuation of a campaign to harass Crum375 and his friend SlimVirgin and/or hope that they would post here so they could be checkusered by Cato. I think it is time to revisit the decision not to rename the account, and I propose that user:Crum375 be renamed in order for the ENWP user to unify his login. Thatcher 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for heading up. But you seem to mistook the situation. The request wans't made at all. That is my recognition. And this page is not the place to ask for usurpation. It should be done on WQ:CHU/U instead. Thank you for your understanding and respect of this community policy. --Aphaia 14:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am surprised that your first thought is still of protecting your "turf" and not of doing the right thing. After reading your reply, I went to Crum375's enwiki talk page [1] and also read the discussion on this very page at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_.28and_unblock.29_of_User:Crum375. I see there Poetlister, Yehudi and Cato all opposed to the rename. I see yourself suggesting a checkuser and Poetlister endorse that suggestion. I see a great effort here and on Crum's enwiki talk page to protect your territory from interference. I see no particular concern for the potential for harassment of a user in good standing, although, to be fair, the only people opposing the rename who are not Poetlister are yourself and Jeff Q. I would think that in light of recent revelations, a certain amount of self-reflection is called for. I have left a note on Crum's enwiki talk page informing him that now that the danger of his account being maliciously checkusered is over, he should consider registering a temporary account to make the request. But I am rather disappointed that you will not consider doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Thatcher 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pretty astonished by this too. Apparently this refusal is just revenge because some enwp stewards didn't rename an account Aphaia wanted renamed on enwp. See User talk:Jayjg#Changing username. Jayjg 06:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no refusal at all. No request was made. WQ:AN is no forum to do it. That is all. You must realize you ask here even what ENWP policy rejects: usurpation not through request page. --Aphaia 06:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)--Aphaia 06:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the requirement, I think that insisting that it be adhered to is bureaucratic inflexibility at its worst. On enwp there are 1500+ admins and maybe 5 bureaucrats who do renames, here there are just 2 bureaucrats (not counting Quillercouch, who astoundingly retains his privileges) and this board is not exactly a hive of activity. I'm not asking you to do this to prove the superiority of enwp users over wq users, I'm asking because under the circumstances it is the decent human thing to do. Crum375 himself has emailed me telling me he has no plans to return to editing, and will not be making an official request, so I guess I will just drop the subject. Goodbye. Thatcher 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a request has been made, right here. Jayjg 02:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote is no colony of Wikipedia. Wikipedia request page is no place for this purpose. Thanks. --Aphaia 06:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't your revenge for something Crum375 never did to you gone on long enough? When will you do the right thing? Jayjg 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That account doesn't belong to Crum375, but rather Poetlister/Cato as he has mentioned it here....--Cometstyles 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the account should be renamed and be done with it. While it hasn't been done to our exact letter, cases like these is what IAR was made for. Obstructionism for the sake of is ridiculous. Will (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, at this point, the sock account needs to be renamed. It's that simple. The sockmaster (Poetlister/Cato/Etc) has caused enough problems for everyone at this stage. Rename and move on time ... - Alison 08:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Awbrey


Head up folks, please keep an eye on user:Jon Awbrey and his reincarnation. He is a cross wiki spammer like that. He lately installed his user pages. It seems a harmless edits - just his name - his user page but he did no other edits but created such user pages on several wikis. And he did that with his sockpuppet already. Sort of spamming WMF wikis are not offered to. Regarding the recent situation and the caution on user talk:Cbrown1023 from Mike.lifeguard on EN WB, I blocked him and his sock, and deleted four spammish user pages. --Aphaia 06:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links are not spam. They are links to his academic career and his participation on other projects. He is not selling or promoting anything. He does contribute positively to many Foundation projects, though his editing on these projects may be limited due to language barriers. I object to the Foundation and/or Meta Wikipedia interfering in an independent project. It should be up to the WQ community to determine what should or should not be on a user's user page. If Mr. Awbrey's userpage is found to be in violation of WQ user page policy, he should be warned and allowed to change his userpage to something that fits within the community's guidelines and policies. I ask that he be told of our user page policy, be unblocked, and allowed to participate in the community. Thanks. Ripberger 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I speedied and protected Template:Sockpuppet to create which was created by a vandal account which was already blocked by Kalki as a vandal only account. The motive to create this template seemed to harass Herbythyme to cast an allegation he had a sock here.

While some allegations expressed with this template are obviously verified, this template itself is used for abusive purpose: only anons or vandals used it since is creation. Since it is clear its origin was for harassment, I speedied it as personal attack / vandalism. Later we might want to have it again, but then I think it should be based on our consensus, not just import by a vandal. --Aphaia 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grawp sockpuppet accounts


User:Yattara, User:Zem'Jil, and User:Draudnu are all Grawp sockpuppet accounts -- please block them. Email me if you want a fuller explanation. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) (admin, English Wikipedia).[reply]

There are Grawp accounts on Wikiquote as well? That's an interesting revelation :O sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were Grawp accounts as well, but I would like you guys to remind both redbacks and one shot accounts are hardly considered established community members with some remarkable exceptions, specially when he come w/o any evidence. --Aphaia 06:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information is now conformed: any admin who blocks those accounts will be appreciated, while they sure cannot do anything for a moment. --Aphaia 07:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Grawp edits on all wikimedia foundation wikis. One tactic is to create accounts on small wikis, let them age long enough so they look legit, then vandalize either the small wikis or the big enwp (thanks to SUL). Thatcher 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record all three accounts are blocked. --Aphaia 16:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]