Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

(Redirected from WQ:AN)
Community portal
Welcome
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Archives
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion
Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

InstructionsEdit

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:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots
Promotion

Tools:

Discussions


Asking for an independent admin lookEdit

I have recently been engaged in discussion with User:Rupert loup regarding the removal of sourced quotes across the site with dubious reasons (often citing a lack of notability) that I disagreed with. This is also not the first time this issue has come up with this user (refer to their talk page for other incidents in the past). In attempting to discuss the matter and gain an insight into why the quotes should be removed, the discussion took a turn for the worse and my comments were blanked and I was told not to post any more on their talk page. I still feel the removal of many of the quotes (not all) was unjustified and that this user does not fully understand the criteria for including a quote on our site. I am asking for one of my fellow admins (or several) to take a look and comment - and perhaps even step in as I fear that it is likely impossible for me to resolve this peacefully with this user. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to fill a report in Meta with this and all the other abuse that I received over the months here and your indiference on it. I told you that I don't want you to write in my talk page. It's not civil to make commentaries as "solely to satisfy you that the quotes are accurate." Arguing about notability authors and then talking that the notability of authors is not important according a policy talking out of context, ergo the problem was not if there are notable or not in the first place. And then in my talk page arguing about something when your motive is other is bad faith: sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. When I call [Edit: stated] that I don't want [Edit: this admin] to engange in bad faith in my talk page the response that I recieved [edit: a letter] is "I am discussing this in good faith. I do not believe you are acting in good faith" That was the original motive in the first place. Assuiming bad faith fails WQ:FAITH "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiquote. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." I'm not obliged to engage with bad faith user in my talk page (nor anywhere in WQ). Respect my talk page and that I don't want you to write there. Rupert Loup 20:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll comment one more time before leaving it to others to judge...with regard to my comment that you have quoted from, I did of course initially assume good faith with your edits, and have done so for quite some time, even though I have disagreed with some of your removals in the past as well. What I meant by my comment was that your recent actions and the way in which you have argued them have now led me to question whether or not you were in fact acting with good intentions. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Initially where? What was the excact point? Before or after stating that the notability of the authors didn't matter in the begining and take a policy out of context? We already have that discussion before in 2017 and you totally ignored me at that time. You also said that you were "quite familiar with WQ:Q". So explain to me why you took out a policy out of context just because you believe that I was acting in bad faith? You don't have to answer, is a rethorical question. It doesn't matter because you already said that you assumed bad faith on me so don't write in my talk page ever again. You can engage with me here or in the Village pump. Rupert Loup 21:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • My initial observations about the responses by Rupert loup are a bit befuddled. There is strenuous objection to some edits on your talk page, but the accompanying links point somewhere else. The overall thrust of the complaint is not very clear to me except that there is some disagreement about the meaning or applicability of some policies where you do not appear to recognize the substance of UDScott's questions and objections. I really do not understand the refusal to communicate with one of Wikiquote's most experienced administrators. I will have more to say on a later date when I have reviewed the history of discussion, edits, and blocks. In the meantime, please provide a link to your filing at Meta, which will hopefully explain the situation more clearly. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Ningauble: I'm talking about Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, and I'm going to report it if this admin continue to abuse my talk page. First there were the constant abuse by that Australian IP that extended for months, and this admin didn't gave a crap, then was Prapat with the accusations of copyright, the hounding and harassment to try to delete my content becuase he just didn't like it, and now the accusation of vandalism by that forum Shopping, POV pushing, sock-puppeter user that has filling all Wikiquote with extremist content by unreliable and fringe authors like Koenraad Elst and other islamophobics that inspired terrorists like Anders Breivik and Brenton Harrison Tarrant. I raised this issue in 2018 and nobody cared. And now that I decided to clean up the mess sudenly UDScott is worried about civility and threatened to block me for not want that bad faith edits in my talk page. Why this admin is not concerned for the accusation of vandalism and the forum shopping? That's not disruptive and uncivil? I'm not going to engage with any disingenuous user in WQ. Rupert Loup 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of the devil, here is that harasser IP again doing block evasion. Are you going to do something about it UDScott? Rupert Loup 02:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your personal attacks. Accusing someone of extremism and terrorism is a serious personal attack, and I have also never done abusive sockpuppetry. I have also not complained about extreme anti-India, anti-Hindu, anti-Indian government, pro-Islamist, apologist or anti-liberal-Muslim POV. Your claims about other people are completely false, but this is not the place to go into discussions of random slander and defamations of other people. (This latest comment also seems to be copying the hounding and harassment by Xsapora, an user indef blocked on three wikis for hounding, personal attacks and other things) --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The user has also deleted discussions from me and other users on his talkpage and has even deleted other people's votes in AFD discussions ([1] [2]). Rupert claims "abuse" and "bad faith, when he has not given good faith to other editors on many occasions, and when he himself has made personal attacks against other editors, and has been bullying, stalking, edit-warring and hounding other editors while refusing to seek consensus or to fairly discuss his actions. Rupert is often acting as if he owns this site and is the final arbiter on any content and is for example removing all other opinions, views or pov's on bogus, spurious and made-up reasons (that he of course doesn't apply to the content he is adding), and is doing so with abrasive edit-warring. He acts as if rules are only for others but not for him.

At the recent AFD on S.K. Malik:

  1. Before nominating an article to AFD, he deleted a lot of content from the article S.K. Malik.
  2. The AFD comes in the middle of abrasive edit-warring and deletions of sourced content for spurious reasons
  3. He even deleted my vote in the AFD
  4. His reasons for deletion in the AFD and in articles are spurious:
    1. For example, instead of citing wikiquote policies, he cites wikipedia policies, but the requirement for encyclopedic content is not identical to those for quotes, and makes arbitrary claims that are even irrelevant for this type of content (quotes)
    2. Or deletes content claiming WQ:CRITICISM, when the content (an author's own words) has nothing to do with criticism
    3. Or often just deleting content citing with no reason at all and no edit summary, and some of his deletions are "camouflaged" with other edits
    4. Or deleting content because he doesn't like the secondary source when the quote is marked as "SOURCE quoted also in SECONDARY SOURCE" citing arbitrary and irrelevant reasons
    5. Or deleting content because he claims he cannot verify the quote online. For example in the AFD about Malik, he claims that the source has to be online so that he can verify it online. But in fact an online source should not be used if one wants to be really sure that a quote is really accurate. Only the printed edition of the original book can verify if a quote is really accurate. In any case, it is not a requirement that a source is available online (but in this case, on-line copies can be found if one searches for it)
  5. Many of the quotes he is adding himself don't satisfy his own criteria that he mandates for others, let alone wikiquote policy. I have noted his additions of non-notable quotes in many high level articles like the articles "Democracy", "Economy", "Power", "State", "Rights", "Violence" and many, many others ([3] among many other examples)
  6. Refusal to seek consensus and to accept other views than his own makes it very difficult to work with him. While I have noted such kind of behaviour to other editors previously, it has unfortunately gotten worse.

The bogus claim "can't verify online" has been used by Rupert loup many times to support deletions of sourced content, for example:

  • Deletion because Can't verify (I'm not familiar with the source, but the link shows that the source exists and can be checked)
  • Deletion because Can't verify (This is ridiculous: author, title, year and page number are given, and the source is widely available and is very notable)

Another related bogus claim that he uses for deletions is the claim of "fabricated quote" or "failed verification" which he never proves. He made this claim on many articles like Al-Hidayh [4], but actually all the quotes were correct quotes from the Al-Hidaya, and I have been adding them later with online links to the copy to an online source. [5]. The same bogus claim was made at LGBT_in_Islam and many other pages, see Talk:LGBT_in_Islam.

Rupert claims "bad faith", but when an user who has been many years on Wikiquote uses spurious bogus claims to remove reliably sourced content, and when his claims are not based on actual wikiquote policy and practice, (and by the same criteria, much of his own content would fail!), then one may also ask oneself questions of good faith.

When Rupert loup deletes NPOV templates from articles without any edit summary or discussion [6] [7][8], but at the same time he is regularly adding NPOV templates to articles [9] and reverts their removal from articles [10], then one may also ask oneself questions.

He is deleting quotes on spurious and bogus grounds often without discussion, but when "his" content is removed with a valid reason and discussion on the talkpage, he instantly reverts [11] [12]. He seems to think that the rules (and often made-up rules) are only for others but not for him.

At the AFD and in articles, another "reason" for deletion is because he doesn't like the secondary source when the quote is marked as "SOURCE quoted also in SECONDARY SOURCE" citing arbitrary and irrelevant reasons. For example, the Hadith and the Hidayah (an important Sharia text) are major Islamic texts, but when a quote from such a text is added with the note "as quoted/attributed in T.P. Hughes", or "also quoted in Ibn Warraq", then he reverts it claiming that he has a problem with the secondary source, because for example, T.P. Hughes (an eminent orientalist) had a Christian bias, or Ibn Warraq has his own biases, and therefore they are not "reliable and independent". But in fact it is standard practice to have attributed quotes in wikiquote, and there are many examples: there are thousands of quotes in wikiquote that are marked as "attributed to", or marked as "quoted in". And then Rupert comes and makes the arbitrary claims that the quotes he doesn't like are not "allowed" because they are attributed. As long as it is clearly marked as an attribution, there should be no problem. Otherwise we couldn't quote even the Hadith, since a common English translation "was published by the Islamic University of Madinah and many have associated the university with the Wahhabi Salafi ideology, and have stated it has exported Salafi-inclined theologians around the world".

And my vote at two recent Votes for Deletion has been deleted by Rupert loup. ([13] [14]) I hope and trust that the closing admin will check the article history and take my vote into account when closing the vote. Everyone has the right to vote. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

There were clear warnings given to Rupert loup to stop his edit-warring, including his deletions using spurious and bogus claims, including these warnings:

Rupert loup has continued with the edit-warring and deletions without talkpage discussion (even less than 8 hours after the warnings: [15] [16], which has continued until today [17] [18] etc, and has again deleted content from an ongoing AFD [19], has deleted "Vote for deletion" templates [20] [21], has again deleted NPOV templates [22], and has again unilaterally deleted a whole article against consensus without going through a discussion process, see Talk:Racism in the Arab world.

Rupert loup has deleted reliably sourced quotes from the article Racism in the Arab world, including quotes from Bernard Lewis, one of the greatest scholars on Islam, who also wrote well known studies on Racism in the Arab world, so pertains very much to this article, and other scholars like David Brion Davis, and Murray Gordon, which I have been adding just a few hours ago. All these edit-warring Rupert does without discussing his actions on the talkpage and seeking consensus. Here is the article history [23]. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree that many of the recent actions taken to remove many quotes are suspect. I am particularly dismayed by the action to change entire pages to redirects, without porting the quotes on them to the the redirect target. This has the effect of deleting an entire page of sourced quotes. There may be issues with individual quotes, but to remove the full page en masse is not recommended practice. Rather than foment a continued edit war, I will defer to other admins for now to comment and address these actions as I wish to remain recused from it given my already ongoing dispute with this user. I trust that an independent review by one of my fellow admins will lead to a resolution. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Rupert has also previously changed entire pages to redirects, recent examples I've seen are [24] [25] [26], and without talk page discussion or merger proposals. That is not how a consensus-based process works. He often acts like he owns this place and with this behaviour it seems that the opinions of others and other views don't matter to him. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Rupert is continuing his edit-warring ([27] [28], etc), and has again deleted the article Racism in the Arab world, and there is no indication that he will respect the warnings, and start discussing instead of deleting, without discussion or for bogus reasons, properly sourced content that pertains to the page's topic. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I was surprised to see this thread when it was first started yesterday. i did not want to immediately jump in, until I had a chance to check my recollection about my own interaction with User:Rupert loup. I also do not like to get involved in contentious wiki-discussions for fear of a boomerang.

Having said this I would like to say that I found Rupert loup to be helpful when I first started editing at wikiquote. Also, seems to me this user does a lot of work around here. I admire the user's willingness to do the heavy lifting: cleaning up articles. This is something many here (including me) refuse to do because it has the potential of getting one into disagreements. From where I stand I do not believe this user deserves the harsh criticism he has been getting.

That's all I want to say. I hope I have managed to contribute without hurting anyone's feelings. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think User:Rupert loup should be blocked for a while. He keeps reverting and redirecting whole pages (e.g. Fatwa, Racism in the Arab world) and removes large parts of other pages without discussion (e.g. Joseph Goebbels, Hindu-Islamic relations). Maybe some content on the pages needs to be removed or improved, but this kind of extremely aggressive editing is disruptive. -- Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Weird that this user didn't edit Wikiquote until now, and also weird that all the Right-wing users in WQ are starting to POV pushing in synchronized way. Soapbox Sam, lol don't make it that obvious guys. Rupert Loup 22:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm more active on Wikipedia. Your behaviour seems almost paranoid to me. Here it certainly violates WQ:AGF. Cool down. Take a break. If you can't do it voluntarily, an admin should force you. Sorry. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Chrisahn: It took me a year to be in this paranoid state of mind. You just came here and you are already there. That's a testament on how toxic this place has become. Going back to the issue, I received this message by WeNotMeC020, which is similar to the rationale that UDScott gave in my talk page before, which is not according with the WQ:Q. The notability of the publisher is not a proof of notability on the author, a lot of non notable/unknown persons have they work published by known outlets. The discussion about adding non notable authors, news, and quote mining already have taken place before in July 2019. When Om777om did exactly that, and GreenMeansGo at that time said "These are hardly even genuine quotes. For example, the actual space in the article between the beginning and end of the first quote is 433 words, reduced here to 128. That's essentially manufacturing a quotation from a news article. This is also not the first time this issues has been brought up." and "Just because you appear to be preoccupied with contemporary politics does not mean that everyone else is also" and Ningauble said "It is a fake, a false attribution, a lie. Combining ideas is sometimes a good idea, but it is not quotation, and does not belong here at Wikiquote. Three administrators (at least) have advised you about this, but you seem to believe it is fair and just to manipulate excerpts in this way. You are mistaken, and you should be advised that inserting false information as alleged "quotes" is grounds for blocking your account." (and that comment by Ningauble applies also in the issue that I was discussing here a week ago). Both Om777om and WeNotMeC020 have the same interest (US politics and Theosophy), used the same sources and have the same style on quoting. What I'm seeing is that different users of all the political spectrum and beliefs are trying deviate Wikiquote from the original goal, that is making an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations, and turn it in a news/blog/site aggregator. That content is making the site into a troll magnet. That pages that I redirected are POV troll magnets. I don't know when exactly or why that changed because there is barely discussion in the VP and here. But something changed and I'm not interested in contribute in a (news, blog, social media, etc) site aggregator. There are thousands of sites with that specific purpose that have way more activity than here. Without neutrality and no content curation, the content added by all editors that took the time to properly add content according with the spirit and goals of WQ policies (independent of their political views and beliefs) will be degraded and buried. I realise during this week that there is just not enough people discussing the issues, if there is no discussion that means that there is no enough of a community here to make consensus and advance the project. So I will (semi-)retire until I see more people participating. Rupert Loup 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
UDScott you said to Om777om:"Please be more careful (and precise) in your quoting from material. I have noticed this before, where you take parts of a quote and selectively omit portions of it - this seems to be done to push a certain POV and is a dangerous practice - especially as many may not check the original source to see if it is correctly captured here." What made you change your stance so drastically compared to now? Rupert Loup 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Rupert is again making personal attacks.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Rupert has made personal attacks and harassment, has deleted reliably and properly sourced content that pertain's to the page's topic on spurious, bogus and made-up claims in order to remove other views and opinions, has been edit warring to remove my vote at two AFD discussions[29][30], or to delete my improvements of formattings in an article for no reason, or to remove NPOV templates from articles, or to delete "Vote for deletion" templates [31] [32], or even while an article is marked with the "inuse" template and so on.
And now he has broken the 3RR again :There were 5 reverts in less than 7 hours at Racism in the Arab world.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm disruptive editingEdit

User:Eaglestorm has reverted my edits three times now and this is a problem. I'm familiar with Wikipedia but Wikiquote does things a little differently and I am not as familiar with the project specific rules or which process to follow. Vandalism seems like too strong a word to describe this disruptive editing so I thought it was more appropriate to post here than on Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress. It doesn't seem appropriate to call it edit warring when these revert were spread over several weeks, rather than all in one day (as it would be on Wikipedia), but it is still a problem nonetheless.

If you want to skip ahead the article is Demolition Man (film) and here are the three diffs showing the reverts: [33][34][35] in reverse order, most recent first.

Now I will explain some of the problem with these reverts. This editor wrote only "loq trim" as his edit summary. This is not a meaningful edit summary. I later learned that this was probably meant refer to the Wikiquote guideline WQ:LOQ, but apparently typing ten whole characters is too difficult for this person. Even if I had somehow magically known what this project specific jargon had meant, the edit summary was still inadequate as it fails to explain why this user was deleting some quotes and not others, and why if anything needed to be trimmed it wasn't long chunks of dialog. Failure to follow the simplest rules and the basic courtesy of provide meaningful edit summaries is rude, but there is a much bigger problem with these reverts.

This person attempted to "correct" several quotes, and got it badly wrong. (I was surprised to see anyone "correcting" quotes at all, especially without any explanation or pointing to sources to show the new version was right.) When I restored my edits, I provided edit summaries to explain and I also started a discussion on the article talk page, hoping to get some discussion about why some quotes were deleted and not others. I clearly explained that the "corrections" were wrong, as I had checked both the script and the film itself. I provide a link to the script on the Talk page, and I could have provided Youtube clips if this person had made any effort to discuss. (I am ware the shooting script has some differences from the final film but it was not an issue in this case.) One of the "corrections" was so wrong it is just bizarre, this person was getting the brand name "w:Oscar Mayer Weiner" wrong, changing it to "Meyer", despite my clearly explaining that this was wrong in my edit summary (and on the talk page) and providing a wikilink to make it really easy to check. This editor does not even seem to be trying to improve the article. -- 109.76.214.107 04:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I've probably posted this in the wrong place, so admins please do move this to the correct place as needed. I will check back over the next few days. -- 109.76.214.107 04:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, you're obviously obsessed about the article and its evident you come crying in here when things are not to your liking. Everything was ok until you came along and now that its been limited, you sound very desperate. you said it yourself things are done differently on WQ than WP, and if you can't hack it, you should just move along. I'm really sad for you, that you IP-hop to make a point that's basically not needed.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
This isn't about me, there's not need to make personal remarks. I choose not to use fake names, I choose to edit anonymously without an account, as I am allowed to do. If people disagree with my edits I discuss WP:BRD. If an editor refuses follow the simple rules and the basic courtesy of explaining their edits or discuss changes, and repeatedly makes the same obviously incorrect changes then I have no choice but to take the problem up with administrators.
Eaglestorm ignored edit summaries, did not make any effort to discuss on the talk page, and repeatedly added obviously incorrect information to an article. It is not clear that Eaglestorm is making good faith efforts to improve the article. Those are problems that I hope the administrators will help to address. -- 109.76.214.107 07:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Eaglestorm fixed an error in the article and thought it was appropriate to respond with the edit summary "fixed to accomodate whining anon's rant. happy?" [36] I hope administrators can see that this is uncalled for and WP:UNCIVIL. -- 109.76.214.107 07:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hahghaha. I just laugh at you trying to apply WP policy when WQ prolly has its own tenets here. I hate to say this, but your drive-by disruptions to the article are no different than those of other - for lack of a better word - shit-disturbers who've come to WQ all these years and trying to force their points in. Your rants are not worth my time. You should just move on to other activities, instead of wasting everybody's time. You couldn't be man enough to edit from a single IP - that's one point for IP sockpuppetry from you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Eaglestorm has made his attitudes and opinions pretty clear. I await comments from administrators. -- 109.79.81.27 14:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Is this sort of behavior considered acceptable on Wikiquote? Are the no admins on Wikiquote? Should I be asking on a different notice board? -- 109.76.209.8 13:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Only your behavior is unacceptable. You failed to follow the rules in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Huh? Which rules did I fail to follow? Please explain.
DawgDeputy recently reverted my correction to the Demolition Man page, with an edit summary saying I didn't explain my change, but I did explain that I was reverting a misquote and I did explain again on the article Talk page too, with links to clips on Youtube so anyone could easily check the quote themselves.
Putting aside the uncivil behavior from EagleStorm for a moment (maybe people are fine with that) I would still have though actually getting quotes right was an important even essential part of Wikiquote, and that repeatedly adding incorrect quotes was clearly a problem. -- 109.76.200.104 21:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
YouTube is not a legal source. If it is not legal on Wikipedia, it certainly is no different here. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Eaglestorm again reverted, changing the quote and is still getting it wrong.[37] At first I didn't want to call this vandalism but since he continues to add clearly incorrect quotes to articles, and refusing to explain or discuss, it is vandalism.
Yes of course DawgDeputy, the film itself is the most important source! Please do check the film. I only mention YouTube on the article talk page as an even easier way for anyone to quickly check that popular quotes are correct, if they cannot check the original script. There's no excuse not to check when it is so easy. There is no reason to get film quotes so badly wrong, repeatedly, and after someone has reverted warning the quote was wrong. (The Edgar Friendly monologue wasn't even in the script, so there was no chance of accidentally getting it wrong because of that either. IMDB is a often unreliable but it actually manages to get the Edgar Friendly quote[38] right in this case, so it isn't being incorrectly copied from there either.)
Admins? Anyone? Do I need to escalate this or refile it somewhere else? Eaglestorm is persistently getting quotes wrong. I hope his edits aren't this badly wrong on any other articles he edits. -- 109.78.193.104 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
So says the IPhopper obsessed with just ONE article. So funny with all these cries for help! I'm amused! --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Charlie's AngelsEdit

Hello, Please move Charlie's Angels (TV series) to Charlie's Angels to match the Wikipedia title.--Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

DemocracyEdit

Democracy was protected indefinitely over a year and a half ago. Can this protection be lifted so I can edit ? --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 01:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend to administrators not to open the door for IP vandals, even if the one who requested the protection removal is not a vandal. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

rupert loup has accused me of block evasion, and is vandalisingEdit

This is not true. Rupert loup is lying. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 01:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Rupert has also been edit warring and reverting edits without discussing it prior, and without writing a cogent edit summary. He is doing the same edit warring that had resulted in his one week ban. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 02:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
and now I have been accused of being a sockpuppet by rupert loup and dawgdeputy. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 04:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
and now rupert is vandalising my talkpage, as can be seen here. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
and rupert loup is edit warring right here as well. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any irrefutable evidence he is lying, or are you clearly hounding him?
Furthermore, you never thoroughly discuss your edits prior to reverting his, either. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I cannot prove a negative. I can prove that rupert loup has accused me of block evasion, as you can see with his edit here, and with his edit summaries here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on.
some of my edits I did discuss in the edit summary, for example, in edits such as these I did write in the edit summary Trotskyist Fraction – Fourth International is hardly a notable source or a reliable source or a neutral source, and in these edits I wrote in the edit summary red flag is not a good source. In others I wrote dead link, Contrary to the accepted Marxist interpretation, Hitler was not an opponent of Marxism and did not want to destroy it because he was ‘inimical to labour’ but because he was caught up in the insane idea that Marxism was an instrument of the Jews for the achievement of world domination, and above all because he rejected internationalism, ‘pacifism’ and the negation of the ‘personality principle’ by Marxism.” Rainer Zitelmann, Hitler: The Policies of Seduction, P137-138, misleading image, this one is better, George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police, pp 197-198, convicted sex offender. There were a few that I did not write any edit summary in, for my part I didn't think these edits would be contentious - after all, not every edit made has an edit summary. And yet rupert loup did not once take his queries to the talk page, or ask me why I made one edit or another. Instead, he reverted all these edits and either had no edit summary as to why he was reverting them, or in the edit summary accused me of evading block. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:4185:9870:CA06:212B 05:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wishbone (TV series)Edit

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Saroj Uprety (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The same goes for Follow That Bird, Barney's Great Adventure, and anything else related to PBS television series. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ningauble:
@Koavf:
@Kalki:
@UDScott:
@DannyS712:
@Hasley:
@Martin Urbanec:
@Tegel:
Update: This kind of vandalism continues on, and it needs to be put to a stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@DawgDeputy: None of those seems like vandalism to me and at least one just harmonizes the name that is listed here with the name at en.wp. How are any of these edits "vandalism"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This has been a serious issue on Wikipedia, as well. Vandalizing IPs have been putting anachronistic company names in other PBS-related articles and the like, and refuse to explain their edits. Many an IP had been blocked as such there, with the pages they vandalized receiving protection. It should be no different here. Blocking the IPs will not stop them. Protecting the pages indefinitely will. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have also found the problem on PBS related television series. I had contacted the administrator for protection, but it is not protected yet. Saroj Uprety (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The three articles listed above are not protected. If more are needed, please list them here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet(s) of one TVEBOREdit

2001:8003:59db:4100:5d6:ebda:4936:13ea (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
2001:8003:59DB:4100:8143:D03B:1CB6:4B4C (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

Falsely accusing one Rupert loup of lying when the evidence is all in these IPs history of edits and block evasion. Perfect match for TVEBOR's editing patterns, summaries and all. Protect all pages on which they made their edits so these edit wars come to a complete stop. Oh, and one of them is demanding removal of protection of a certain page that had been protected indefinitely from vandalism, but I must advise against it. Do not open the door for (potential) IP vandals. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

IP range is 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35, same as always. 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

Hello again, I recently saw his (User:Rupert loup) edits warring in this (Jessica Chastain) and many pages. And I am surprised, He have been continuously reverting the sourced quotes.--Saroj Uprety (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:AtcoviEdit

I've been hit by IP addresses leaving me nonsensical messages. Can an admin please apply a protection to my talk page? -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done by Ningauble --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Page protection of User talk:TegelEdit

Hi. Consider semi-protection of my talk page due to vandalism. Thanks. -- Tegel (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandalism on...Edit

@Koavf: @Tegel: @UDScott: @Ningauble: @Kalki:

... Aladdin (1992 Disney film). Sockpuppet IPs have been making the same unnecessary edits without remorse or explanation, and it has to be put to a stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)