Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/023

Chip Berlet Quotes Page


Over four years ago I complained that the page about me is primarily composed of negative critical material and very unbalanced. It was originally set up as part of a series of political attacks on me and my work that spread across several Wikimedia projects and discussions. I am not allowed to edit my own page, and no one has stepped forward to remedy the problem. All of the quotes About me contain nasty personal attacks. Most of the cites and links are to more nasty personal attacks. All I am asking is that someone here in this discussion forum take on the responsibility for fixing what is clearly a biased page. --Cberlet (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Wikiquote:Village pump archive 21#Using Wikiquote for a vendetta. While we cannot delete quotes just because they contain harsh criticisms, it is indeed desirable that our articles be balanced. To this end, I have just added three (more positive) quotes to the article, including two written by yourself. See [1]. Regards, DanielTom (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About the quotes of Kedar Joshi


Kedar Joshi is not a notable person. User RogDel seems Kedar Joshi himself or other but he is constantly adding material to wikiquote. I request action about his behavior of this. Kedaaar Jo Sheee (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion concerning Kedar Joshi's notability (or lack thereof) is still ongoing (at Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kedar Joshi quote farming), as already explained elsewhere, so, needless to say, RogDel's "behavior" was perfectly fine and legitimate. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this editor seems to have very strong feelings about Kedar Joshi; I have just reverted a page blank he/she made on Wikibooks.--Abramsky (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that user "Kedaaar Jo Sheee" has posted duplicate copies of this missive on multiple project and discussion pages, in a manner that might be considered disruptive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure


These two discussions have had ample time and participation to reach consensus, if any. I would be grateful if someone a little less heavily involved than myself would assess the results and close them. Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A month has passed with no further comments on these discussions.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done Cheers! BD2412 T 03:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. If these quotes can be included (and I see no reason why they should not be included), I see no reason why quotes by Kedar Joshi should be excluded.
2. “Among more experienced editors, the vast majority support removal” – BD2412
Since WQ is not a democracy, this seems to be an invalid argument for removal. There does not seem to have been any stronger argument countering all the simple and logical arguments I have made in support of inclusion of such quotations. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RogDel, with all due respect, I seriously doubt that we should create such explicit regulations about such exceptional situations. As to Kedar Joshi, after years of discussion we should draw a line, and not keep bringing it up. As to the regulation even for me it is confusion, trying to make a difference between quotability and notability, let alone outsiders. There are so much ins and out about, and regularly there seem to be a good understanding. Don't try to make regulations for those handful of cases we don't all agree on. -- Mdd (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<edit conflict> Regarding RogDel's first point, other stuff is not always good precedent, particularly when the addition of that stuff gives the appearance of making a point about a minority view from these discussions. Now that these discussions have been closed, there may be further action to deal with this stuff that was added while the discussions were ongoing.

Regarding the second point, discussions are assessed based on a variety of factors, including (besides the votes) policies, practices, precedents, arguments, & etc. As expressly indicated in the closing remarks, from which you selectively quote, anonymous single-purpose accounts that are not cognizant of or do not address those factors have little or no weight in assessing the arguments.

Regarding the essay linked above, it directly contradicts the established guideline at Wikiquote:Quotability, which makes it relatively unpersuasive as an argument in these cases. If you think the guideline is wrong then it might be better to propose changing it rather than try an end-run around it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • RogDel, I think maybe only one or two people have read your (rather long and repetitive) essay. Perhaps, for their benefit, one could condense it into one sentence: "If a quote is cited in a 'highly reliable' secondary source (even if just once) then it is notable enough to be on Wikiquote." Would you accept that as a fair summary? ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new pattern-vandal


A new pattern-vandal has been vandalizing the Jimbo Wales page and user pages. The latest account activity has been as Technoquatic Quoticals (talk · contributions), and this account and other associated accounts seem appropriate for blockage as clearly vandal accounts. ~ Kalki·· 22:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps making new accounts to vandalize the same pages. Froonkfurterich‎ (talk · contributions) seems to be his latest incarnation. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put a short-term block on this user, but if current behavior continues, I'm sure a long-term one will be necessary. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also w:WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technoquat/Archive Vanischenu (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feuding between DanielTom and Cirt


Per the discussion ongoing at User talk:UDScott#Query for help (and on my talk page), I am setting forth the following interaction ban in response to the incessant and disruptive feuding, baiting, and forum shopping between DanielTom and Cirt.

DanielTom could properly be blocked for incivility at this point (he has said as much). If DanielTom attempts to bait or otherwise interact with Cirt, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or otherwise contests any of his actions, I will block DanielTom for a minimum of thirty days.

If Cirt attempts to interact with DanielTom, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or otherwise contests any of his actions, I will move to desysop Cirt on this project. Reacting to baiting is not the trait of an administrator.

To the extent that either Cirt or DanielTom thinks the other is making improper edits or otherwise misbehaving, do nothing about and say nothing about it. The other administrators on this project are observant, and we will see and will handle any violations of policy.

I hope that my fellow administrators agree with my determination with respect to this matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Cirt to BD2412
Originally posted on another page: diff.

This is my reply to comment by BD2412.

Comment: @BD2412 (talk · contributions), understood. I will take your advice to heart. I will do my best to not react to the baiting. I will do my best to only engage in a polite and constructive manner from here on out. I am sorry for troubling you with this. I will do my best to rise above this matter. Thank you for your advice and your input. -- Cirt (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ningauble about the ban

I endorse the interaction ban imposed by BD2412. The misconduct of both parties has been extensive and disruptive. Note that the ban as stated is indefinite in duration. I would not want to entertain an application to lift an indefinite ban in less than six months or a year.

Regarding stipulated consequences for violating the ban by DanielTom:  I approve of handling this in a progressive manner, as has been done, rather than imposing a 30 day block on the first infraction. I think any further infractions should be met with steep progression.

Regarding stipulated consequences for violating the ban by Cirt:  This is not really an administrative sanction. A vote of confidence may be called any time that three users concur. Administrative sanctions may still be imposed for misconduct even if it is not stipulated in this ban. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has already breached the interaction ban


BD2412 made the terms of the interaction ban clear:

If Cirt attempts to interact with DanielTom, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or otherwise contests any of his actions, I will move to desysop Cirt on this project.

Yet, Cirt has already completely disrespected the interaction ban: just one hour later, he decided to come to my talk page, uninvited, and posted this baiting comment. I am tempted to reply to his baiting comment, but I won't, as I don't think I would particularly enjoy being unable to edit WQ for 30 days. However, after Cirt's direct breach of the interaction ban cited above, I would like to see BD keeping his word and actually "[moving] to desysop Cirt on this project". ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC) last edit: 19:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I have blocked you for 24 hours to be sure that you understand that I am serious about this interaction ban. As I said above, if either of you thinks the other is making improper edits or otherwise misbehaving, do nothing about and say nothing about it. That includes accusing one another of violations of this interaction ban. Please do not imagine for a moment that other administrators on this site are unaware of any action that either of you is taking.
Secondly, I hope that you agree that fair warning of a penalty to be imposed is necessary before imposition of that penalty. I saw the post Cirt made on your talk page last night, shortly after I set forth this interaction ban. Based on Cirt's edits, there is no reason to believe that he was aware of this interaction ban at the time that he made the talk page post of which you complain. You, on the other hand, were clearly aware of it before you posted this complaint.
In case I need to make this any clearer, both of you are to carry on as if the other does not exist.
Finally, I hope that the community approves of my determination with respect to this problem, but if any uninvolved administrator feels that I have overstepped the bounds of my authority in my actions with respect to this matter, please feel free to unblock DanielTom. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, fully endorse both the ban and your action here. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: thanks for blocking me, I appreciate it. Alas, I have a hard time learning from punitive blocks, so I shall make another comment here, and be blocked for it again. I must point out that your contrived naïveté ("there is no reason to believe that [Cirt] was aware of this interaction ban at the time that he made the talk page post of which you complain") is quite breathtaking. Cirt edited several different pages after you set forth this interaction ban, including yours, UDSCott's, and Ningauble's talk pages (not just mine), so he must have seen the Recent Changes page, or at least his Watchlist. To say that he somehow missed the section you had opened an hour earlier in the Administrator's Noticeboard, with his name in it, is simply absurd. In any case, as you can see, I have mentioned Cirt in this very comment, so you should block me once again, this time for "at least 30 days." Won't that be fun for you? I will miss editing articles, but I understand that I need to be blocked, as I pose such a great danger to Wikiquote. Knock yourself out. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have now specifically requested to be blocked for 30 days, I will accommodate your request. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if I asked you to [insert any fantasy] me, you would also "accommodate" my request? I did not request to be blocked. Sorry that you don't understand irony. (It's not a new concept, it's been around for at least a couple of years now.) In any case, you decided to abuse your tools and block me for 30 days, as a smokescreen, so that you wouldn't have to properly reply to the clarification/explanation in my comment, above, but even a child can see through that. (Nice try, though.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reconsideration


DanielTom has sent me an email stating that he has learned his lesson, and will abide by the interaction ban, and therefore seeks reconsideration of the period of the block. He seems to have gotten the message, and I am inclined to unblock, if there is general support from my fellow administrators for so doing. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection.--Abramsky (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we can have another productive editor and not have anymore back-and-forth between them, I'd say that's the best possible scenario. Thumbs up. EVula // talk // // 14:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me, assuming the dispute is not continued. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the three of you. And thanks to Ningauble and BD as well, even though I am disappointed by their recent actions. (Anyway, time to move on.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I received a snarky email when I extended the scope of the block,[2] I do not object to giving the benefit of the doubt if others are persuaded that he is now earnest about reform. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My email to you was not "snarky", and as no person reading this here has access to it, other than the two of us, it is very ungentlemanly of you to say it was. However, I should say, the message you left at my talk page after revoking my talk page access for 30 days was "snarky", as I've just briefly explained there. Finally, I cannot believe that it was in Wikiquote's best interest to have me blocked an unable to edit articles (but, then again, maybe that's me being too egocentric.) Sincerely, DanielTom (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. Ningauble, if you think you can revoke my talk page access for 30 days and then not hear any criticism from me, think again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the community is in agreement, the block of User:DanielTom is lifted. The interaction ban remains is place indefinitely. BD2412 T 17:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom had (before asking to be unblocked) sent both BD and Ningauble more than a couple emails with diffs and links to articles that could have been easily fixed in less than 10 seconds, but he was simply ignored. Given this, I (speaking in the first person now) did request to be unblocked early so that I could edit said articles again myself [as well as others, and I quote from the email: I just want to go back to edit[ing] articles. (Plans include adding a few quotes to the Bertrand Russell article, Virgil, and then fixing the Death Note page as promised [3])]. I should say that the original block itself was ridiculous (in my opinion, at any rate; admittedly, it is always amusing for me to be treated like a vandal — though, oddly enough, even deliberate vandals, whose only contributions have been wrecking articles, are usually only blocked for 2 days, while I found myself blocked for 30 days, but I digress), and as I had already been blocked for about two weeks, that was indeed long enough time for me to admit "lesson learnt" [where the lesson is: 1) some people apparently do not really care about article quality, and 2) punitive blocks are considered acceptable here]). I will indeed "abide by the interaction ban" from now on. Time to focus on articles again. Thanks guys for getting me unblocked, and see you 'round. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original block was for 24 hours, this was your second block. Persistent disruption is indeed treated differently than drive-by vandalism, and blocking to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" is preventative, not punitive. I do recognize the distinction may not be easy to appreciate when one is on the receiving end of it, but it really is not the same thing.

Regarding article fixes not done: you would not believe the length of my list of things needing to be fixed. One of the coping mechanisms I employ for problems arising faster than I can address them is to defer action when it appears that someone else will probably handle it. Still, the list grows daily, even without distractions like this, and the priorities I choose are mostly inexplicable even to myself. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someday someone will explain to me exactly how blocking me for 30 days for this edit was "preventive", and not punitive. Anyway, I agree with you, this really is a "distraction", and a waste of time.~ DanielTom (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New block of DanielTom


In response to this edit to my talk page, in violation of the interaction ban, I have blocked DanielTom for three months. This editor has previously made requests for actions like this in ways that do not implicate the interaction ban, so clearly he knows how to do so, and has chosen not to. I interpret this as the editor intentionally trying to make trouble, to see what he can get away with, which is not conduct consistent with a good faith desire to build a useful compendium of quotes. BD2412 T 13:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for SantiagoG


Hi there,

SantiagoG (talk · contributions) is a spambot using a non-sul account, so unfortunately it can't be locked. Please consider blocking it instead. :)

Thanks, Mathonius (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Spam bots like this are pretty routine, you can usually just tag the userpage and they get deleted and blocked pretty quickly. EVula // talk // // 06:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, this particular pattern of userpage spam has become very routine lately. They will eventually realize they are wasting their time, but it can take a while because they are remarkably stupid. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I still had the CheckUser bit, I'd run the occasional check to see if I could catch a bunch of accounts at one time, but alas, there was never any connection between them. EVula // talk // // 05:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let us just nominate and choose a second CheckUser here, and then you get your bit backs. -- Mdd (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here, here! BD2412 T 03:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, if you are interested you got my vote. -- Mdd (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the support, but since my last bid for CU status I have come around to the view that it is probably better for the project for power to be diffused rather than concentrated. As I am already a 'crat, I would feel uncomfortable also serving as a CU at this point. However, I do think we need more CUs. BD2412 T 00:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble, in the light the diffusion of power, would you be interested in the CheckUser bit? If so you got my vote. -- Mdd (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For my own peace of mind, I prefer not to delve into the activities of bad actors more deeply than I already do with my administrative work. I don't want to be involved in researching personally identifying information about them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the chances of us having a new CheckUser on Wikiquote are about 0%. Where would the candidates get the (minimum) 25 supporting votes to be "promoted", when we don't even have 10 active contributors on this wiki? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. You would be surprised by who shows up for CU elections. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikiquote CheckUser has ever been legitimately elected here, as anyone looking at the archives can now confirm. It's not just that people with almost no local contributions show up; we've also had more than one sockpuppet voting in such elections. (And, no, I wouldn't be surprised because I've seen them.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it has been argued that sock voting makes the entire project illegitimate, but I don't think we need to go there. I am satisfied by the level of participation in past CU elections that the outcomes were not influenced by the quantity of puppet votes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Where? The discussion you linked only refers to possible copyright infringements, not to "sock voting".) The outcomes were certainly influenced by puppet votes (who helped the support votes reach the minimum of 25). While I too am "satisfied", I still feel that the current minimum (a relic blindly and rigidly imposed by meta policy) is too high, and unrealistic, for Wikiquote. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No legitimate CheckUser election? O rly? EVula // talk // // 17:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Some users there had (and still do) literally zero edits on Wikiquote, other than showing up at your election to vote support (namely, and strikingly, User:Nifky?, User:Razorflame, and User:Jake Wartenberg). (Incidentally, there were also other users, namely User:Juliancolton and User:Counterpower, who also had zero or just a couple of edits to articles before voting there.) None of that was your fault; nay, it was pretty much a must, given that we simply don't have, and never had, 25 active contributors on Wikiquote. (See the larger picture?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have more active contributors (usually defined as at least 5 article edits per month) than that. See editor activity levels at Wikistats. Getting them to participate in community affairs is another matter. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielTom: (Within that lengthy discussion there were strong words alleging incompetent governance in dealing with the Poetlister socks, claiming that was sufficient grounds to disband the project.) The elections were typically called as soon as they reach 25, and results would not likely have been different had they run a little longer. This is really moot unless you want to challenge EVula's standing for reinstatement in the event a second CU is elected. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to challenge EVula's standing. (We need more CUs, not less. But, ain't gonna happen.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ningauble, thanks. Still that particular pattern of userpage spam also worries me, and I think we should search for more structural solutions. Getting the CheckUser bit back, and (let EVula) keep running occasional checks, seems the least we could/should do. -- Mdd (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The global Stewards are well aware of this pattern, which occurs across all wikis. Unfortunately, the IP addresses used by these spambots are highly variable by design, so blocking them, even ranges of them, is ineffective. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, any time that I would run a check on the spam IPs, I'd get nothing. It's really annoying. EVula // talk // // 15:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might investigate whether Wikipedia has developed an Abuse filter for this pattern. However, the text changes so much that keeping up with the filter might be a game of Whac-A-Mole. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter maybe


I don't hang out at Wikiquote, so I'm not sure how much of a problem this is. But I just ran across an edit that may have been able to be stopped by an edit filter similar to w:en:Special:AbuseFilter/135. Perhaps somebody could copy that filter over to here. 04:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page spam


Yesterday and today I noticed a (for me) new type of spam on the talk page: an unrelated text (size about 4k) from a rotating ip address (see for example here). Now I noticed that 7 of 9 originated ip addresses originated from one ownerid in Venezuela. If this continues, can we than block his range of IP addresses all at once? -- Mdd (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far I count 25 IP addresses used by this spambot, ranging from to This is too wide a range to block without blacking out entire continents. If the problem persists then someone could try using the Abuse filter to mitigate it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)–Updated 13:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request User:Diogotome

The following unblock request is copy/paste here (partly trimmed) from here by Mdd (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, my brother was blocked some time ago in many wikis where he has zero edits... He was recently unblocked at Commons, where admin asked him to write on his user page that he is my brother. (He did so [4]...) He was also unblocked at Wikisource [5] on the grounds that he had no edits there. (He also has no edits here.)

Other than the strong evidence presented by email that he is my brother (including citizen card, ID), there are other things which you included can check. 1) he created his account in 2009 (I myself didn't even know about accounts till late 2012); 2) the email with which he registered his account is (confirm that); 3) he still uses that email, even on his Facebook account, where you can find him (Diogo Tomé). I think it is obvious that the account is his.

Also worth noting, he, just like me, registered with his real name, which is not what socks do (...). Although I know he doesn't want to edit Wikiquote, I still don't think he should be blocked here on sock grounds. ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have lifted the block. It is my understanding that User:Diogotome has no interest in editing here. I am sure you are aware that it would raise some eyebrows (on all of the above mentioned projects) if this editor suddenly began making edits that seemed as if they are made as a proxy for you, so please take care. Cheers! BD2412 T 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (your understanding is correct). ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with this unblocking, but I would like to rectify some incorrect assumptions. (1) The email with which he registered his account cannot be confirmed by any technical means available to administrators here. It is confidential information that only the account holder is at liberty to disclose. (2) Registering with a real name most definitely is something that socks do. Some of the most notorious abusers are known to impersonate real people.

Finally, BD's eyebrow raising admonition cuts both ways: both accounts should avoid involvement in each other's affairs. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The email with which he registered his account cannot be confirmed by any technical means available to administrators here." Where can it be confirmed? ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that it could be extracted by a developer. However, it is easy enough to change the e-mail associated with an account; we have no way of knowing whether it is the original address.--Abramsky (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It is confidential information that only the account holder is at liberty to disclose." The Privacy policy identifies one way he can confirm the email address currently linked to his account (using "email this user"), and indicates conditions under which the Foundation would disclose it without his consent (e.g. subpoena). ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose even the original email ("e-mail address confirmation") could be changed if forwarded. As to the real names question, of course socks use real names, but not their real names (any name you can choose is someone else's real name). My point is that no sock has its name so close to the sockmaster's (in this case, Diogo being a Portuguese name, and our family names being the same). Maybe if I get blocked indefinitely on Wikiquote, and unable to edit, my brother may come along to return my favor here, and ask that I be unblocked, although that is exceedingly unlikely (not the block part, but the returning of the favor part from him). ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection request for Mean Girls


Could an administrator semi-protect Mean Girls? Too much IP vandalism going on as of lately (especially (talk · contributions)). Thanks in advance. SnapSnap (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done - but I also trimmed this very bloated page first. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD for 10 & 12 August 2013


The QOTD layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/August 10, 2013 will have to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 10, 2013 by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 21:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Mdd (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am once again a bit late with a selection and the QOTD layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/August 12, 2013 will have to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 12, 2013 by an admin. ~ Kalki·· 14:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone semi-protect this again? It's getting vandalized a lot. Kjc2 jabber 15:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to protect the talk page or our main public-facing portal, where newcomers and visitors should be welcome to make pertinent inquiries and comments, unless the situation becomes unmanageable. I think the current frequency of unconstructive edits on this widely watched page is being handled well enough by folks who notice and revert in a fairly timely manner. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems in the past year only one comment was made by an anom visitors, while the page is vandalized 50+ times. -- Mdd (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not counting registered accounts without enough local edits to be autoconfirmed, but it is true that unconstructive edits significantly outnumber constructive ones. I just don't think a handful of reverts per month is too great a price to pay for keeping the front door open. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking question


Just wanted to gauge the opinions of the admins: I noticed that Mdd (talk · contributions) recently blocked a user indefinitely for a single instance of what I would characterize as moderate and fairly harmless spamming (linking to a site for their poetry on their user page). If it were me, I would have likely let them off with a {{spam}} warning - which is what I did earlier in the day for someone who posted a link to their blog on their user page. I'm not saying my inclination is correct or that Mdd (talk · contributions) is wrong, but in the spirit of consistency, what is the feeling out there? I'm just curious. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're talking about MelissaHg (talk · contributions), I'd say it was a reasonable assumption; the page itself matches the same pattern for all the spam that we've been getting for months (right down to the double <br> tags before the link). Plus, I'm not sure why someone from Switzerland would have a Spanish poetry site... EVula // talk // // 18:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the past 4 months I have blocked about 200 new users, which where I presume all made by spam bots. The links which are presented by those spam bots differ greatly from hardporn to... indeed poetry. Does UDScott suggest, that we make go make a difference in what type of site the spambot is referring to? If indeed there are just spam-bots, it seems to me adding warnings on the talk page is a waist of time. -- Mdd (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, I'm not really asking whether or not a block was warranted (in most cases I agree it is) - I'm just asking if it is the first step in all cases. I just want to be consistent in our treatment of spam. If it is the case that we automatically block anyone who posts spam, fine - but our blocking policy does not reflect this and should be updated. The only current mention of spam is that if a block is given for spamming, it should not be less than a month. And if we are going this way, then what is the purpose of the two spam warnings we have? Again, I'm not trying to criticize what anyone else has done - I'm just asking the question on how we would like to generally treat these circumstances. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that we need to update our blocking policy, then. I don't think warning spam accounts will do anything; it's just drive-by vandalism, but if we just delete the spam and leave the account, there's a much better chance that they'll swing right back around and spam again, increasing the amount of administrative work (not by a substantial margin, of course; but it is one more time that we have to delete their spam). EVula // talk // // 19:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before we became inundated, as Mdd notes, with a consistent pattern userpage spam, I routinely responded as UDScott describes. Since then I have been blocking them on sight, when they appear to be using the same pattern, without investigating whether the link itself is commercial or otherwise execrable. I would not be quite so hasty with things that do not appear to match the pattern.

I do not regard this as drive-by spamming: the consistency of the pattern leads me to believe we are dealing with an SEO spammer who is hired by people who want to promote their web pages. If the nature of the linked content makes no difference to the spammer, I am not sure it should make any difference to us. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott: our regular visitors, the spambots, follow an easily-distinguishable pattern, and I think those can just be blocked with no prior warning (they aren't here to contribute to articles anyway). But when it comes to human editors who, say, post unwarranted links in "External links" article sections, then the {{spam}} templates can and should be used, as they offer useful information to the user, and serve as warnings. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, understood - this pretty much matches to my understanding. I guess it's my fault that I've been spending more time on other parts of the project and I don't know that I would automatically recognize someone as a spambot, which spawned my question (I fight them when I see them, but I usually see more traditional vandals than spammers in my time here). Thanks all. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In recent months this pattern of spam has been a large proportion, even a majority, of newly created user pages. Therefore, I have been screening all new user pages daily. Since becoming an administrator, Mdd has been catching most of them while my time zone is sleeping. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)/16:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if a spambot starts posting here, and we block them for just a month, do we have any reason to think that they will start spamming again once the month is up? I honestly don't know. It seems to me that spambots, once blocked for any reasonable length of time, just go away forever even if the block expires. BD2412 T 20:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the spambot will be back after a month. He has already been using the same pattern for several months running. This might quite possibly be the same SEO spammer that started two years ago, though the pattern now uses less verbose boilerplate. Prior to that time userpage spamming was rare and was not systematic; but since then we have only infrequently been without extended campaigns of systematic userpage spam.

The named throwaway accounts are seldom re-used, except in an immediate timeframe. The reason I block them is not to prevent re-using the names, but to autoblock the underlying IPs. This does not stop him, but it is my impression that blocking enough of them slows him down a bit, at least until he gets a fresh set of addresses to exploit. Perhaps resistance is futile. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we file a complaint with his ISP? BD2412 T 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back when I had my CU flag, I would run a check on the occasional userpage vandal like these, but I could never find a pattern between them. I'm not sure that there would be a single IP to file a complaint with. EVula // talk // // 21:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a way of adding "<br><br>" to the abuse filter, at least as a test (maybe just on user pages). ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I use that syntax sometimes, and in drafts in userspace too. Some kind of alert would be nice, though. BD2412 T 02:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it technically possible to make the creation of an external link subject to a captcha for new users and only new users? (I think it would be too irksome to have it for everyone.) That would solve the problem.--Abramsky (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible, since Wikipedia is able to prevent new users from creating articles at all. This is an excellent suggestion. BD2412 T 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but it would appear that the spammer(s) already passed the captchas required to create these throwaway accounts in the first place. Doubling the labor cost by adding a captcha when editing may not be much of a deterrent.

If we want to pursue this, it would involve tweaking configuration settings for the ConfirmEdit extension. I do not know where to view the current settings (or whether I am allowed to). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just bar new accounts from adding external links, period? No external links until you've made x number of regular edits over y number of days? BD2412 T 18:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a very significant new policy but, yes, we can. It could be enforced by the Abuse Filter if there is no more direct method. (We would need assistance from Wikipedia's filter experts to implement something that does not give false-positives when editing a page that already contains external links.)

Note that this would impact many long-term IP editors who choose not to register an account (most of whom probably do not monitor discussion pages where policy consensus is formulated). Although I favor the proposition that everyone should be required to register before posting, I must note that it is a minority view opposed even by Jimbo, with whom I agree about some other things. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BD didn't say anything about barring IPs from adding external links. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe IPs must already pass a Captcha to add any external link. Is that not correct? BD2412 T 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BD: Yes, captcha is required to post an external link when one is not logged in.
@Daniel: Unregistered falls below newly registered in the hierarchy of user status. The implementation for what BD describes above would be to require at least "autoconfirmed" status to post an external link. There is no precedent for granting IPs more permissions than registered accounts: doing so would create a logical snarl and would be a disincentive to registration. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble, referring to BD's proposal, you write: "this would impact many long-term IP editors". But it wouldn't. BD suggested "No external links until you've made x number of regular edits over y number of days", so clearly "long-term IP editors" would be exempt from such a limitation. You speak as if you would want to bar IPs from adding external links altogether, but that seems idiotic to me, especially since they already have to pass a captcha to post them. (Well, I see you don't want IPs editing at all, but yeah, that is an extreme position...) ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four points in reply to Daniel:
  1. BD did not propose, he enquired whether it is possible. I replied that it is, and noted that it would need a major policy discussion.
  2. I did not speak for or against allowing IPs to post links. I noted that this group would be impacted, and followed up in a subsequent post explaining why they would be impacted. My remark about whether this group should be posting at all was intended purely as a disclosure.
  3. Note that our long term IP editors frequently have their IPA changed by their ISP, and the same IPA may be allocated to multiple users. There is no such thing as an "IP account": an unregistered user has no account and earns no confirmation status.
  4. If you think I am an idiot, you would be well advised to keep that opinion to yourself and focus instead on the issues under discussion.
I begin to wonder whether I am wasting my time in replying to you at all. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was focusing on the issue. I said "bar[ring] IPs from adding external links altogether [...] seems idiotic to me, especially since they already have to pass a captcha to post them." I didn't say I think you are an idiot, though I am sorry if the word "idiotic" offended you somehow. (For what it's worth, I think you are smart, and I do admire your ability to take things out of context.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is little ambiguity in ascribing a desire to someone and declaring it to be idiotic. Who else might you have meant by "you" in that sentence? There is no call for insinuating that I dissemble by misrepresenting context. If you wish to accuse me of dishonesty then you may call for a vote of confidence, otherwise your insults are not welcome. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, in "but that seems idiotic to me", the "that" refers to "bar[ring] IPs from adding external links altogether", not to your desires. I'm not going to change the offending word now that you've made such a big fuss about it. I also have no intention of calling for a "vote of confidence" just because you happen to believe in idiotic things. (Hell, I believe in idiotic things too.) Maybe it does seem to me idiotic to want to prevent IPs from editing. So what? Feel free to block me for "incivility", if you're so overly-sensitive. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid any misunderstanding that might arise from how my remarks have been characterized above, let me make one thing clear: I have not advocated barring IP editors from posting external links. I brought it up because, recognizing the consensus for allowing unregistered editing, I believe it would be an adverse consequence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not uncomfortable with temporarily placing newly registered editors in a worse position than IP editors with respect to external links, if our persistent spam problems are coming from newly registered editors. BD2412 T 17:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You get spam from IPs too; I just removed some on Talk:Main Page.--Abramsky (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To do next


In the above discussion two types of action are proposed.

  1. To update the Wikiquote:Blocking policy, adding a note about permanently blocking "spam-only accounts"
  2. To create an abuse filter, which automatically blocks (more specific, I mean, disallowing edits) of new users trying to add external links

Now I would like to propose to pursue both courses of action. Concerning the abuse filter, we can begin with a pilot for a short period of time. -- Mdd (talk) 12:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) / 01:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzkov: nuisance or hoax?


Can anyone verify citations added by (talk · contributions)? Googling the name "Nietzkov" appearing in quotes this user (and others[6]) has been adding, I find a pattern that smells like promotion of a nobody. Are celebrities really talking about him as claimed, or are we being hoaxed? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, all these quotes are either unsourced or sourced to non-existent Youtube videos, so they can be removed as unsourced. They all look pretty fishy to me, anyway.--Abramsky (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the YooToob links (it is impractical with my limited bandwidth). Since this much is demonstrably bogus, I will go ahead and revert it all. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]



I have deleted a number of bogus titles created by (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log). The user's few remaining contributions correspond to genuine titles, but I do not know whether the contributed content is bogus.

Can anyone check the accuracy of the remaining contributions? If they are not affirmatively verified then I am inclined to presumptively revert/delete them due to their vandalistic provenance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His edit to Yu-Gi-Oh! ("Say hello to the unstoppable family of monsters; The five Kuriboh brothers!") sounds plausible, though I couldn't confirm it. The dialogue in Disney's The Kid is accurate, but the one in Radio Flyer (film) seems bogus. (I'd ask him about this last one.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the Radio Flyer (film) dialogue was pretty close to correct (I've since fixed the page). ~ UDScott (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out this is a long term vandal known at Wikipedia as the "Voice Cast Vandal". I have blocked the IP for a year. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Just wondering if someone could edit Template:Otherwiki and change Wikivoyage-logo.svg to Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Mdd (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and spam there is picking up even more. Maybe now it can be semi-protected? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 15:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the idea of that particular page being semi-protected, considering it's the talk page for what is effectively our homepage. EVula // talk // // 15:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway vandal


Could some admin semi-protect the articles: George Washington, Michelle Obama, Men in Black (film) and Men in Black II? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "Broadway vandal" has been around for at least three years, and has no difficulty picking new pages to deface whenever it is convenient. More than a dozen pages have been impacted.

Rather than restrict editing of random pages arbitrarily selected by the vandal, it might be better if someone could implement an abuse filter that screens for the pattern of content added. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ningauble, could you initiate the development of such an abuse filter? And/or a abuse filter such as mentioned in the #Blocking question discussion? -- Mdd (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I could, but I am not sure that I will. I have given some thought to a filter for the Broadway Vandal, and it is on my list of things to consider doing; but I have not invested the substantial time it would take to acquire the requisite expertise with the filter tool. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the past few days, some idiot anon's claiming Douglas Quaid has talked to him. I've been reverting it for sometime because I don't think it adds anything to article improvement. Can we block that guy?--Eaglestorm (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eaglestorm, the first step is to give him a warning. -- Mdd (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's a warning template around here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote:Template messages/User talk -- Mdd (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical spam.


User: has been spamming links on random articles related to medicine; might be worthwhile blocking ? --Aphorist (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a single episode that has stopped. A block would be worthwhile if the activity resumes. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming links to the same site has continued from multiple IP addresses, so I have added the site to the spam blacklist. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the addition to the spam blacklist, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improper mischaracterization by Ningauble of another user's comment


It is alleged on my talk page[7] that I, user Ningauble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), have improperly mischaracterized the words of user Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Because I regard this as a serious allegation of misconduct, and because I have previously made a commitment to Cirt that I would submit his concerns about improper conduct on my part to this noticeboard for review, I invite Wikiquote's administrators to evaluate whether what I wrote was a mischaracterization of Cirt's words, and if such be the case, to recommend appropriate action to address any misconduct on my part.

My understanding of events is that when I joined a discussion to express opinions in support of a third contributor's edits, Cirt replied, in part, "Everything in moderation, no need for extremists, either way" and I replied, in full "'Extremists'? I invite you to reconsider your characterization of those with whom you disagree." [emphasis in original] As I understand it, the allegation is that "characterization of those with whom you disagree" misrepresents that to which "no need for extremists" refers.

In my defense I offer the following points about my understanding of the referent of Cirt's remark:

  1. In the context of the original discussion, the word "extremists" clearly and unambiguously refers to participants in the discussion, or at least to participants in the Wikiquote project, not to the merits of the question being discussed, which concerns the appropriateness of certain article content.
  2. Cirt has indicated (in discussions linked above) that this was not intended to refer to any actual individuals then participating in the discussion, but to potential future participants in the discussion. Whether considered as applicable to past, present, or future participants, describing it as a "characterization of those with whom you disagree" is equally applicable to actual or hypothetical participants, and is in no way a mischaracterization.
  3. Whether considered as an attempt to disparage current participants in the discussion, or as an attempt to pre-emptively discredit future participants, or even as a mere irrelevancy absent such intent, Cirt's remark about extremists (i.e. persons who are far outside the mainstream of society) was unmistakably and unambiguously a characterization of some people. The only assumption I made in describing his remark is that he disagrees with such people, which seems quite evident from the context.

My interpretation of these events is somewhat subjective, and is offered solely to explain why I responded to Cirt's remark in the first place, not whether the content of my response was a fair and accurate characterization of that remark. If it is determined that my response was indeed a factual misrepresentation, whether by reason of incomprehension or by deceit, understanding motive may help administrators decide upon appropriate actions to take. I replied to Cirt as I did because:

  1. Although Cirt's comment was prompted by my expressing an opinion with which he evidently disagrees, I did not assume it was a personal characterization of me individually, and my response did not suggest that this was the case. Rather, I looked upon it as an apparent attempt to discourage or discredit anyone who might express opinions extremely different from his own, by labeling such people as extremists.
  2. I consider "extremists" a rather odious characterization of anyone, though there certainly are some people to whom the appellation may be applied with accuracy. Use of such language may be marginally appropriate where user conduct is the subject of discussion, but I consider it wholly inappropriate in the discussion where it was used.
  3. "Extremists" is also a very inapt and objectively misleading way to characterize people who argue against a practice that is itself extremely rare in Wikiquote articles. (Mdd's investigation found only about 30 instances among Wikiquote's 22,000+ articles.[8]) This is not extremism far outside the mainstream, it is defense of ordinary mainstream practice.
  4. I consider it unbecoming of an administrator such as Cirt to engage in argumentum ad hominem of any sort, and I consider it a duty of administrators such as myself to encourage participants to refrain from it. For this reason, and the reasons above, I thought it was appropriate to encourage Cirt to reconsider making this sort of comment.

Although I have shared some of my motivations for my remark, please bear in mind that the substance of the complaint I am submitting for your consideration is not whether the article content under discussion is a good idea, nor whether Cirt's comment about extremists was a good idea, nor whether it was a good idea for me to respond, but is whether my response was in fact, as alleged by Cirt, a mischaracterization of his words.

Thank you for reviewing this complaint about the conduct of yours truly, Ningauble (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: I agree that there is/was something off about the use of the word "extremists" in that context, which I initially (mis)read and interpreted as "extremism": referring to the editorial action of remove all further reading sections. I also think Cirt could do a better job using non-offensive/neutral talk-item titles. Offensive titles like "Mischaracterizations" tend to escalate things. -- Mdd (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion as it was occurring, and I've re-read it now, and I absolutely do not feel that you mischaracterized what was written. I believe that Ningauble was correct to call him on the use of such an inflammatory term as "extremists." And I also believe that the way in which Cirt was invited to reconsider showed courtesy and actually offered a chance for clarification so that the words would not be mischaracterized. My reading of the statement (both then and now) was that Cirt felt that there were two extremes of action - either completely remove the additional links, or leave them as they are. In the end, I believe that Cirt was trying to espouse a compromise, wherein some links were cut and some remain. But that is not the way the exchange was written. I believe that Ningauble acted properly and that the use of such a term as "extremists" was inappropriate. It has been my experience that Cirt has a tendency to inflame a discussion beyond the bounds of civility quite quickly if someone does not fully agree with him. In this particular case, I believe that the resulting conflict certainly could have been avoided with a better choice of language in the discussion. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your thoughtful deliberation. Since nobody has (yet) endorsed Cirt's allegation, I am going to resume editing Wikiquote (including areas relating to the subject of the discussion from which the allegation arose), under the rebuttable presumption that the allegation of misconduct is without merit. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you all for the above comments. I realize upon further reflection that my comments were inappropriate. I shall take greater care in the future to not comment in such style in subsequent discussions. I wish you all well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: As far as the matter related to the Further reading sections, I realize that community consensus does not support this. Therefore, I have voluntarily gone ahead and taken the actions to remove these myself from the relevant pages. This has since been  Y Done. I made a note of this at Village Pump. -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto spambot detection with User:Abuse filter


Proposal :

  1. to investigate the implementation of Auto spambot detection with User:Abuse filter the Extension:AbuseFilter
  2. to implement the Auto spambot detection with User:Abuse filter the Extension:AbuseFilter

-- Mdd (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (p.s. this proposal is added a day after this discussion started) / 14:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be incredibly helpful, what do you think, community? -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Just a note that I fully support implementation of this, as nom. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The heading of this section refers to spambot detection, but the links provided above appear to relate to the ability of the AbuseFilter to impose blocks, which is not currently enabled in Wikiquote's implementation of the abuse filter. I will assume, but correct me if I am wrong, that this blocking feature is the one you are interested in enabling, rather than detection of spambot posts using the filter.

    I think the first priority is the detection of spam so it can be filtered out. Blocking the accounts is dependent upon detecting the activity first, and may be of less importance if the posts are effectively filtered out. I also think it could be dangerous to implement the blocking feature at a project that does not have its own local filter experts.

    It would be very helpful, and would not require enabling anything, to import a filter from another wiki that is already designed for the pattern of spambot activity we have been experiencing. If anyone would care to identify such a filter in use at another English language project, I would be happy to work on importing it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that sounds good, agree with analysis by Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed, due to lack of clarity in the proposal about what exactly is proposed to be done. (The apparent confusion displayed in discussion above reinforces my opinion that it would be unwise to enable dangerous components of a system that is not well understood by those who would use it.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explicit proposal is now added: Due to the previous comment by Ningauble and my earlier comments an explicit proposal is now added. -- Mdd (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your restatement of an explicit proposal, inserted above Cirt's original post, suggests that you might understand what is meant better than I do. For purposes of clarification, what do you mean by implement with User:Abuse filter? ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're quite right, the proposal is rephrased. -- Mdd (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your revised restatement of what is proposed, by striking reference to "User:Abuse filter" which was the focus of Cirt's original post starting this thread, appears to be changing the subject altogether rather than clarifying it.

          This thread has become a real mess, with confusion about the subject exacerbated by posting comments out of chronological sequence. I suggest everyone take a deep breath, step back, and begin a fresh thread if desired. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we are changing the subject here:

  1. There is a mediawiki extension named Extension:AbuseFilter
  2. This extension can be turned on in any specific wikiproject, as explained here on
    1. This specific gives a table with "Permissions configuration comparison"
    2. Here it seems the Abuse filter is "turned on" on a lot of Wikiproject, but not on Wikiquote
  3. Now I guess if a request is made and granted, the Extension:AbuseFilter will create User:Abuse filter here on Wikiquote

Now I could be mistaken (again)), but let us bear in mind we are all on unfamiliar ground here. -- Mdd (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have asked Jasper Deng on Wikimedia for advice (see here), since he created the User:Abuse filter page overthere. Mdd (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to clear up some misunderstandings:
      1. The Abuse Filter extension is already installed at en.wikiquote, as indicated at Special:Version. Its main interface may be found at Special:AbuseFilter.
      2. The Abuse Filter does not need to be "turned on". It is up and running, and Special:AbuseLog shows its actions.
      3. The table to which you linked does show that the Abuse Filter is installed here, but information about the configuration is incomplete. Apart from a naming difference, configuration of the extension at en.wikiquote similar to that described at w:Wikipedia:Edit filter, and is essentially the Wikimedia default.
      4. In particular, as described at w:Wikipedia:Edit filter#Actions which can be assigned in response to filtered edits, automatic account blocking is not enabled.
      5. "User:Abuse filter" is the username under which the Abuse Filter performs blocks, so that the block log, recent changes, & etc. can show who [sic] did the blocking. It is only needed at projects where automatic account blocking is enabled.
I hope that, in light of this information, my original comment (16:00, 16 October 2013 above) may make a little more sense.

I appreciate that you would like for the Abuse Filter to combat the spambot activity we have been experiencing. It would be a good thing. Unfortunately, writing filters is not easy: it requires specific technical proficiencies, and can cause massive disruption of the entire site if it is done wrong. Please proceed with the utmost caution. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. We already have a Abuse filter management system...! Now the million dollar question: is there not an extra extension/filter we can add here? It looks like we have got 15 filters running, while Wikipedia (see here) has up to about 600 filters (not all active). -- Mdd (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to borrow some from Meta or MediaWiki (we have some good ones), then I or a steward can help. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I am not a regular contributor to Wikiquote, I noticed this discussion after it was mentioned to a fellow SWMT member on Meta. I personally disagree with automatically imposed blocks from an edit filter in almost all cases, but I am fine with disallowing edits. Of course, it's up to your community whether or not you want automatic blocks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also believe that automatic blocks are not a good idea. This is not allowed at Wikipedia, where there are a large number of filter experts. I think it is scary to even consider the idea at a project like this where there are no experts to manage it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PiRSquared17. we are looking for a bot that can disallowing edits, not block user accounts (See also correction here): In short, we want to disallow new users to add (any) external links to Wikiquote. Do you know how this can be done? -- Mdd (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mdd: The original purpose of this thread concerns the blocking feature, by reference to m:User:Abuse filter. (Cirt was well aware of the extension itself, having edited filters previously.[9]) Again, " I suggest everyone take a deep breath, step back, and begin a fresh thread if desired."

          There was not much consensus in previous discussion (#Blocking question) to disallow any external links by new users (much less unregistered ones). If we do reach a consensus for such a policy, then it would be easy to implement automatic enforcement. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

        • @Mdd: This project already has AbuseFilters that can disallow edits. To create one, see Special:AbuseFilter (please test filters before enabling them). I am an admin on Meta, where we have blocking filters. Only two people (including myself) opposed it there. False positives could really discourage new users, so I think blocking filters need to be disabled and fixed after any FP. PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource (see here) has an abuse filter (nr 15) up and running, that prevents "New users adding external links on their user or talk page". It seems like a good idea to test this Abuse filter here on Wikiquote. -- Mdd (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're only tagging such edits, not preventing them, as it also catches good links. If you want to try it with "disallow" enabled, that is a different story. I can (privately) give you the code that other projects use for this, but only stewards and admins on Wikisource can see what the conditions for that filter are. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind offer! I am going to follow up with PiRSquared17 about finding suitable filters that can be adapted from other wikis. They can be difficult to find and import without assistance because most are "private", i.e., the details are hidden from public view (for good reason).

We do need our filters to be a little more discriminating, sensitive to recognizable patterns used by spambots, than simply looking for the presence of external links. (E.g., they should not reject things like the original version of this user's page, or the page of this seemingly well-meaning person. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made m:Special:AbuseFilter/43 and /44 public. Not sure what wikisource does exactly, but it should be similar. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pi! These filters detect and tag any edit that adds links the new user's page/talk. I am not sure tagging is a great benefit, since we seem to be catching them already at New Pages and Recent Changes; but if others think it would be beneficial to tag them then I will set up these filters or something similar. (They are easy.)

What would be more useful, IMO, would be something that detects the specific pattern of spam we have been dealing with and stops them from posting. I have not followed up with Pi about the pattern yet, but will do so later today or tomorrow. Unfortunately, the pattern is so variable that it will take more than a simple "regexp" to catch many of them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. (Note: change the part to PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


PiRSquared17 provided info about m:Special:AbuseFilter/65, which is designed for the spambot pattern we have been experiencing. I have implemented it here, with some changes, as Special:AbuseFilter/16 (on a test basis initially, to go live soon).

The filter will catch many features peculiar to this spambot, but some posts will slip through due to variations in wording. Administrators who feel confident editing filters can update it as the spammer invents new variations to evade the filter. For major or tentative changes, consider forking a new filter to run in test mode. You can also help by monitoring the AbuseLog for false positives, because some of the triggers may be so generic that they trap innocent edits. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ntsamr is changing its usual pattern significantly. No link + No <br><br>: User:NellieStGeorge & User:ArtALXQlifa. I saw something like this yesterday too. No spam link on the userpage but it created a spam page on ns0. --Glaisher (talk) 05:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Glaisher: do you know any filters that handle this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but I just saw this. m:User:Mathonius/Reports/BAABP --Glaisher (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two cited examples may not reflect a change in the pattern. They may only be cases of operator error when running the bot, like an even more egregious goof last month when the operator not only forgot the link, but also the part "About_Yourself". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the deleted edit, but I recommend you ask m:User:Billinghurst to fix the filter if you think it's missing something. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that these goofs do not appear to be a systematic pattern or recurring problem. If nuisance user pages without external links do become a persistent problem in the future then we can look into filtering them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New type of spambot?


It seems two days ago a new type of spambot appeared (see here) which just kept on adding new spambot messages (up to 25) until it was blocked.

Now today the new spambot account Ritubhaskar came from the same source because it also created a page Wctreeservice.

Should we be worried? -- Mdd (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think worrying about it will help. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint from a user on OTRS


A user has complained on OTRS (Ticket#2013090410005661 ) that as soon as User: is typed in search box, the text prompt "! !Gavin.collins ræpes babies" appears. As it could be offensive and refers to a blocked account, the account could be deleted or renamed at the earliest by taking up with Stewards--Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed the account and deleted the redirects on the User: and User talk: pages; it's still showing up, but that could also be something that clears itself out of the system after a short while. EVula // talk // // 07:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you get "User:! Jack Merridew b& from WP", also a blocked account but rather less offensive.--Abramsky (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and spam patrol


I have lately been preoccupied by some unanticipated, somewhat urgent events in "real life" that prevent me from conducting my usual vandalism and spam patrol. This situation will probably persist for a few more days. I would be grateful if some of our less active administrators could spend a little extra time keeping an eye on things in the meanwhile. (Particularly, Recent Changes, New Pages (all), and activity by users who tripped Filter 16.) Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am back on the job. Thinking about asking for a 25% raise. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at Bhagavad Gita


Heavy vandalism by a user at Bhagavad Gita, and it's not by any new user of wikipedia, but the same user who vandalized the wikipedia page before too with the same spam links. Which can be seen here[10] and his IP/account was banned for Edit warring. The page should be locked for now. Justicejayant (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 December 2013 QOTD


The layout at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/December 20, 2013 will have to be placed into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 20, 2013 by an admin; the auto-protection has already kicked in on that QOTD page. The 21st and 22nd are already done. ~ Kalki·· 20:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]