Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Archives

2005 2006 2007: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2008: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2009: Jan–May • June–Dec 2010: Jan–Feb • Mar–June • July–Dec 2011: Jan–May • June–Dec 2012: Jan–May • June–Dec 2013: Jan–May • June–Dec 2014: Jan–May • June–Dec 2015: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2016: Jan–May • June–Dec 2017 2018: Jan–May • June–Dec 2019 2020: Jan–May • June–Nov 2021 2022 2023: Jan–May• June–Nov

This is a messageboard for all administrators.

Instructions

Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Pages needing admin intervention:

• Wikiquote:Protected titles
• Wikiquote:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
• MediaWiki:Bad image list
• MediaWiki:Sitenotice
• MediaWiki:Sitenotice id when you update MediaWiki:Sitenotice, id num needs also to be incrementally grown
• MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist For global blacklisting, go to m:Talk:Spam blacklist instead.
• MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (upper compatible w/ MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist)

See also:

• Blocking policy
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log
• Wikiquote:Protection policy (draft)
• Protection log

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots

• Wikiquote:Bots
• Bot status log

Promotion

• Wikiquote:Requests for adminship
• User rights log

Tools:

• Linksearch
• crosswiki contrib search
• SUL account status

Discussions

Request for closure

• Wikiquote:Village pump#Kedar Joshi quote farming
• Wikiquote:Deletion review#Kedar Joshi

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)

A month has passed with no further comments on these discussions.... ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Y Done Cheers! BD2412 T 03:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

<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)

• 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

I, for one, fully endorse both the ban and your action here. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

I have no objection.--Abramsky (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

No objections from me, assuming the dispute is not continued. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Although I received a snarky email when I extended the scope of the block,[1] 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)

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)

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)

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 [2])]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here, here! BD2412 T 03:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BD2412, if you are interested you got my vote. -- Mdd (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not necessarily. You would be surprised by who shows up for CU elections. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

No legitimate CheckUser election? O rly? EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 64.40.54.47 04:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

Thus far I count 25 IP addresses used by this spambot, ranging from 60.24.11.41 to 221.10.40.232. 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)

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)

• Diogotome (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

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 [3]...) He was also unblocked at Wikisource [4] 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 diofact@hotmail.com (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)

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)

Thanks (your understanding is correct). ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

Semi-protection request for Mean Girls

Could an administrator semi-protect Mean Girls? Too much IP vandalism going on as of lately (especially 65.175.216.98 (talk · contributions)). Thanks in advance. SnapSnap (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Talk: Main Page

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Can we file a complaint with his ISP? BD2412 T 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BD didn't say anything about barring IPs from adding external links. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Nietzkov: nuisance or hoax?

Can anyone verify citations added by 200.121.207.40 (talk · contributions)? Googling the name "Nietzkov" appearing in quotes this user (and others[5]) 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)

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)

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)

User 98.15.141.31

I have deleted a number of bogus titles created by 98.15.141.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • GUC • stalktoy • RBLs • block user • block 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)

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)

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)

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)

Template:Otherwiki

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)

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

Talk:Main Page again

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Total Recall talk page

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)

Hi Eaglestorm, the first step is to give him a warning. -- Mdd (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a warning template around here.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Template messages/User talk -- Mdd (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Medical spam.

User:125.27.105.23 has been spamming links on random articles related to medicine; might be worthwhile blocking ? --Aphorist (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agree with the addition to the spam blacklist, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Improper mischaracterization by Ningauble of another user's comment

It is alleged on my talk page[6] 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.

• The original exchange may be found here
• The full discussion in which it occurred is at User talk:Mdd#Thanks much for your formatting help

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.[7]) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

• m:User:Abuse filter
  • See also: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Abuse_filter
  • Brief description: note: not a bot; like User:MediaWiki default
  • See also: User:MediaWiki default
  • At Italian Wikipedia: it's currently their sixth sysop by blocks.
  • According to Billinghurst (talk · contributions), we need to first get community consensus supporting this and we can then have the feature turned on. After that, the most prominent issue to consider is simply supervising its activity and placing restrictions on it.

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

---

• Support. Just a note that I fully support implementation of this, as nom. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Cirt. What do you support? Above the concrete proposal is (still) missing, or am I missing something? -- Mdd (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It was simple enough for unanimous support over at Wikinews, shrug... -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
      • So far, it is completely unclear what this is about. So far I only detected that there is a user with the name "Abuse filter" on meta. The rest of the completely unclear. -- Mdd (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's get some things straight:
    1. The tool we might import here is the Extension:AbuseFilter.
    2. The explanation about this tool on Meta can be found here
    3. The user on Meta with the name Abuse filter has made a link on his user page to the above link.
  • Mdd (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It seems this is not correct either, because the explanation about this tool on Meta states: It was enabled on English Wikipedia on March 2009[1] and is now be enabled on all Wikimedia projects... Should this mean that it can be enabled on Wikiquote (by filling in an request)? -- Mdd (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I believe the user you refer to is not an actual person, but part of the automated system to block spammers. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
        • You might be right, anyway. I added an explicit proposal on top of this discussion, so it is more clear what we are talking about. -- Mdd (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• 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)

Okay that sounds good, agree with analysis by Ningauble (talk · contributions), above. -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
  • You are quite right. I think we need to investigate this some further. What are the possibilities and how to implement this? -- Mdd (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • You're quite right, the proposal is rephrased. -- Mdd (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
      • 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)

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 mediawikimedia.org
   1. This specific mediawikimedia.org 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • @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)
      • @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.[8]) 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)

      • @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)

Abuse filter to prevent "New users adding external links on their user or talk page"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Replied. (Note: change the wikimedia.org part to wikiquote.org) PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

┌──────────┘

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)

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)

@Glaisher: do you know any filters that handle this? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope, but I just saw this. m:User:Mathonius/Reports/BAABP --Glaisher (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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[9] and his IP/account was banned for Edit warring. The page should be locked for now. Justicejayant (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted social networking sites

The following websites were added to the spam blacklist a month ago by administrator Cirt (dif). Existing links to these sites are noted in this list:

• facebook.com (74 links)
• twitter.com (118 links)
• myspace.com (104 links)

One user, DanielTom, has requested that Twitter be removed from the blacklist (dif). Note also that citation to this type of site has been discussed at Wikiquote talk:Quotability#Tweets, blogs, chatrooms, &c. without reaching consensus.

Should any or all of these sites be blacklisted or un-blacklisted? Is this an administrative call, or is broader community discussion needed? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose removing any of the above. They are unreliable, as they are not durably archived. They are used for spamming as well. Best to stick to reliable secondary sources, whenever possible. -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Twitter is sometimes the true source of celebrated quotes, such as the ones by Richard Dawkins. Twitter is the most accurate (and reliable) source in such cases, for verified Twitter users, and has been used on Wikiquote for a long time. Could some admin who actually contributes to Wikiquote remove this recent addition of Twitter to the "spam" blacklist? Or will edits like these continue to be disrupted from now on? Come on. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any logical reason to block these sites totally and would support removal from the blacklist.--Abramsky (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with their prohibition. If a quote from Twitter or Facebook or the like is worth quoting, it will be quoted in secondary sources, which can then be cited as evidence of the quotability of the quote. BD2412 T 13:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to STRONGLY disagree with their prohibition. EVEN if one wishes to primarily encourage quotes that are already widely quoted elsewhere, as some seem to be inclined to do (and I do not), the blacklisting of these sites PREVENTS the linking to the original sources, and seems quite unnecessary, and actually more detrimental than helpful, especially when pages of certain celebrities are of "verified" status within these sites. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 13:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC) + tweaks

@BD: do you have anything against primary sources? If you do, you must be on the wrong website. I want to link Dawkins' quotes to their true source, not to some journalist's opinion on why his tweet was offensive, thank you very much. DanielTom (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The question is not whether some journalist found a comment to be offensive (or praiseworthy), but whether it was notable at all. If Dawkins (or some similarly famous person) tweets their grocery list, should it be possible for that to be added here as a quote? By what principle, then, should we not add to Dawkins' page his entire Twitter stream of over 14,000 tweets (including, in the past few days, "Listening to the Carols from King’s College, Cambridge. Very lovely (except for the pretentious rolled Rs), matching the sublime building."; "Catholic Church has a legitimate right & authority to veto scientific conclusions that directly contradict her dogma [link]"; and "I LOVE this video. [link] Anybody know if music copyright problems'd make it hard for me to do something like it myself?" BD2412 T 15:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be working under the assumption that unless you block websites like Twitter, total chaos will ensue, and everybody is going to start adding banal quotes to our articles. Well, sorry to break it to you, BD, but despite your much-repeated and beloved example, no one is actually interested in adding grocery lists to Wikiquote. No matter how much you may fear subjectivity, I affirm that any selection of quotes is necessarily subjective, and I find it strange that you should ask by what criteria are quotes chosen when you yourself follow up by selecting a number of quotes which, presumably, are to appeal to our common sense for what constitutes triviality. How did you do that? By what "principle" did you select those quotes? (By what principles do journalists select their quotes?) You see, I trust our readers' and editors' intelligence in the selection quotes, as I do that of our reviewers (like yourself), who are free to remove from any article quotes which they deem too trivial for inclusion. I only fear subjectivity in administrative areas, where force is used, for example in selecting the period of time for which a person should be blocked. I resent that we are only having this discussion after primary sources like Twitter were blocked, and that the "rules" were changed in the middle of the game, with no consultation. I would like to say a few more words about this, but last time I did so, you blocked me for three months, and God knows for how many months you will block me next time. That's exactly the kind of arbitrary judgment that concerns me. Not fear of grocery lists. DanielTom (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible to discuss the best practice without discussing the personalities involved, so let's focus on that. Let's say we forget grocery lists then, and look at the actual Twitter stream. Here are the last eight tweets by Dawkins which are not already mentioned above, and which are not merely retweets or pointing to links:

• Are dreams epiphenomenal or have they Darwinian survival value? I find "tidying the hard disk" (Evans, Crick) to be not a big enough theory.
• Been watching recent David Attenborough DVDs. He just goes on getting better and better. Truly superb, magical.
• Again accused of ignorance of theology. But what is there in "theology" to be ignorant ABOUT? Tell me 1 theological fact & I'll learn it.
• Religious acts between consenting adults should not be illegal. #Turing
• Oral sex is illegal in several US states. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries. What kind of person thinks it's the state's business?
• What kind of moralist makes a "crime" out of a private act, which harms nobody, simply because it's forbidden in some old book? #Turing
• What kind of moralist makes a "crime" out of a private act, simply because they'd prefer not to do that act themselves? #Turing
• "Overturn a conviction" sounds a lot better than "pardon". "Pardon" implies that #Turing did something wrong in the first place.
• It’s not a posthumous Pardon that Alan Turing needs, but a posthumous Apology. Same for the many others convicted of the same “crime”.

Perhaps these are "quotable"; I don't propose to judge that, but to leave it to the objective filter of whether anyone has quoted them. BD2412 T 19:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are still operating under the fallacy that if Twitter was allowed people would even considering adding such statements to Wikiquote, which is a tiresome straw-man (and very much against all evidence). But let me ask you the opposite, which is actually relevant. Take, for example, the quote from Mortals and Others by Bertrand Russell, "While genius is individual, sanity is social." Now Google it, and see how many times it was "quoted". Result? Zero times. Was it too "subjective" of me to add that quote by Bertrand Russell, perhaps? It would seem that according to your pseudo-objective criteria, such a quote has no place on Wikiquote, and should thus be removed (unlike whatever Miley Cyrus will say tomorrow, which I'm sure will be "quoted" in several media outlets, and so pass with flying colors your "objective filter"). DanielTom (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of junk quotes that make it through in TV show articles. I would say that the difference between published books and things posted on the Internet is that at least books have to go through the filter of publication. Stuff on Twitter and Facebook goes through no filter at all. That said, after thinking it over, I'm not sure that blocking links to these websites is the best avenue to serve this purpose. BD2412 T 01:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not really a straw-man: People have not only considered adding tweets that are trivial or even rubbish to Wikiquote articles, they have done so: Evidence may be found here and among the links to Twitter identified above. The criterion of quoting things that are actually quoted is not "pseudo-objective", it is the objective basis for such compendia as Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, which expresses the concept in its title.

It has been suggested from time to time that Wikiquote limit itself to only quotations that are famous, like Bartlett's, but that is not the consensus and I do not support it. Contributors are encouraged to make subjective choices, subject to consensus, for including lesser-known statements from widely known, notable works. This broader scope encompasses the example from Mortals and Others, so that example is a bit of a red herring.

Another difference between published books and things posted on the interestnet is, as noted above, their durability. The contents of a social networking site may be rewritten, redacted, or deleted at any time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm totally fine with removing Twitter from the blacklist but keeping Facebook and MySpace blacklisted; Twitter seems to have far fewer layers between the person being quoted and the actual comment, versus Facebook with is more advertising-oriented (and MySpace is MySpace, so screw that). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I tend to prefer to avoid "blacklisting" any sites that are not prone to produce merely vandalizing links, I can laughingly agree with your assessment. I generally avoid Facebook and Myspace, despite having accounts on them, and though they probably have some worthwhile comments on them occasionally, I believe Twitter is more likely to produce quoteworthy material. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

How does blacklisting those sites achieve anything? All it does is prevent a live link. I can still go to one of those sites and copy a quote, giving the source as an unclickable link. That is a verifiable source, indeed more easily verified than a printed book that not everyone can readily access. We could make it a policy that these sites are not reliable and should not be given as references; that would require a proper debate.--Abramsky (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't achieve anything, other than make the sources simply say Twitter + date, with no link to it. There clearly is no consensus to keep this disruptive change. (I guess that means it will be kept anyway?) DanielTom (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the point is to not have quotes from Twitter at all unless they are sourced to some other publication (i.e., unless their notability has been demonstrated by the fact that someone quoted them). BD2412 T 15:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

Application for use of AWB

Would someone please grant me the right to use AutoWikiBrowser. Also looks as though that page could do with a little maintenance, there are a few addresses that should be culled. Thanks. It would be great if someone pings me or thanks me for the edit so I know whether I am successful or not. sDrewth 13:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Y Done. I have granted AWB access to "sDrewth" (User:Billinghurst) who, as a global Steward, is a highly trusted user. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

many thanks, now to do some fixing. sDrewth 15:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kalki is making personal attacks, AGAIN...

Everybody, look at [10] - this person, who was at a time an administrator, is verbally attacking other people once more, despite all the warnings. Zarbon —This unsigned comment is by 166.205.55.36 (talk • contribs) .

This of course is the statement of a poorly informed troll impersonator, who seems to be one of the more intermittent vandals of our site. This troll-vandal in one comment declared that I "lost ur sysop rights due to relentless incivility from ur part" — which is of course nonsense. I actually lost it because of suspicions generated by my use of multiple accounts. I was unwilling to alleviate the ignorant and confused assessments of others as to why I might have created them, because I had much more important matters to attend to than those of answering suspicions or explaining much about my perspectives to those who demanded such answers as could be absolutely accepted or rejected, praised or condemned, entirely in accordance to their very limited conceptions of matters. I generally have a very low esteem of such foolish behavior, and though I might hide that fact, I certainly do not deny it. I was willing to lose sysop privileges some years ago, rather than attempt to extensively disclose, deny or lie about far more important matters, in response to their puzzlements and assumptions. So it goes... ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

While not delving into the history of Kalki's adminship or whether the stripping of said status was correct or incorrect, I can firmly state that the cited exchange was in response to a user who unleashed vandalism across multiple pages. I did not then (and do not now) find any fault in what Kalki wrote. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's times like this that I really miss the CheckUser bit. I've blocked the reporting IP, this "report" is worthless. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)