Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

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, reports of abusive behavior, or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. 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
Renaming
Promotion

Tools:


Discussions


new requestEdit

IP vandal on War crimesEdit

We have an IP vandal removing sourced content in War crimes article. Can vandal be blocked or page protected? ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, GreenMeansGo. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo the IP vandal is warring again. Rupert Loup 01:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo: the IP vandal is here again. Rupert Loup 10:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
it is rupert who should be put on notice and not me. Having an external link to the Israel and Yemen conflict is pov pushing - since there are a lot of war crimes and only these two are singled out. --2001:8003:4085:8100:DDCC:A884:6F0C:1CBC 10:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The IP vandal is here again. Rupert Loup 09:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
rupert is at it once again. --2001:8003:4085:8100:BD79:8A8B:BA67:D1D8 10:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo can you do something about this vandal? Rupert Loup 10:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, could you block rupert for his consistent vandalism and refusal to settle matters on talk pages, such as at Talk:Power. rupert has been blocked before. --2001:8003:4085:8100:BD79:8A8B:BA67:D1D8 10:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo and UDScott, the IP is already here again doing disruptive editing. Rupert Loup 19:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
the only person being disruptive is you rupert, with your constant pov pushing and your constant reverting of good edits. --1.136.106.94 23:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The IP is not being WQ:CIVIL and is accusing us of having an "agenda". Their POV warfare will continue indefinitely, as has been happening since years ago withouth any change, can the admins please put and end to this? Rupert Loup 00:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
as is the case with rupert, he is uncivil and condemns others as being uncivil! I used the talk page on pages such as egalitarianism and power, and rupert, not liking what I stated and being unable to argue against it, reverted my edits anyway. Just like you deleted Kalki's edits on purpose. --2001:8003:4085:8100:3161:911A:953C:8F41 11:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for admonition against recent misuse and abuses of existing QOTD ranking system and suggestion pagesEdit

I have previously declared some of the behavior and assertions of JessRek6 (talk · contributions) as appearing to me in various ways suspicious or improper, but I have not attempted to prevent her from engaging in any forms of activity which I have simply found to be mildly irritating, mildly misleading or merely troublesome in various ways.

I will state that she has attempted to make very sudden and not previously discussed and completely undisclosed one person declarations and descriptions of entirely new practices and policies AS IF they were actually officially sanctioned in regard to various things, by various measures, some of them quite improper.

This first of these became clearly evident in attempts to post AS IF they were established and approved official procedures such practices as have actually NEVER been such, to a project page.

There were earlier merely some discussions in which she used or advocated irrational and improper methods of tallying of the rankings of quotes as if they should be used to designate cumulative rather than averaged values, and other assertions in which I found little or no merit. I found these mildly surprising, but so plainly irrational as to not be seriously alarming in most regards.

I am inclined to characterize some subsequent behavior as subtle trolling or derision, but the presently most serious incidents of a clear misuse and abuse of some of her privileges have been evidenced in her postings to pages for suggestions for the QOTD of recent dates. This has thus far only been done regarding 2 pages, but it definitely should not proceed further.

On the rather meager and seldom used options available for February 29 she ranked as "0" and thus "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" every quote suggestion but 2, justifying this with assertions either that "Quote from same source [i.e. AUTHOR] used previously on this date" and/or "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date".

On the more extensive options for March 1 she has thus far limited her rankings of "0" only to my particular suggestions, ranking all 7 of my unused suggestions "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" sometimes SOLELY with the putative justification "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date".

It is possible that she has perhaps begun to become at least a little bit more appreciative of some of the absurdities of some of her current actions, as rigorously applying her novel criteria to the options available at the March 2 page would rank 21 generally highly ranked options on the page as "Not acceptable", leaving only 1 option on the entire page, a quote proposed in 2009 by Zarbon (talk · contributions) but not rated more than a 2 by anyone, including him (and which I actually give the highest expressed regard, declaring a "lean" toward 3, in ranking it 2). Applying the same criteria by which she has posted a "0" to suggestions of the previous two dates would declare as "unacceptable" all present and future quotes by such individuals as of Dr. Seuss, Carl Schurz, Russ Feingold, Mikhail Gorbachev, and John Irving, as they have all previously been quoted on that day of the month, and also one suggestion which I actually already had indicated was unacceptable without explicitly ranking it "0", as having been wrongly attributed to Peter Straub, when it is actually a statement of Jesus as reported in the Gospel of Thomas.

  • Correction : In doing some quick examination of upcoming and very recent QOTD suggestion pages, while preparing to develop considerations for upcoming QOTDs, I realized that I was actually mistaken in my previous remarks when I indicated that applying the criteria JessRek6 had used to mark many quotes as "0" on pages of recent days to those of 2 March, would have left only 1 low ranked quote suggested by Zarbon viable out of 22 other options. I had actually failed to notice that several suggestions by Zarbon had already been used previously for that day of the month, and thus applying the criteria she had applied in previous days would have actually left absolutely NONE of the 22 options posted on the page unmarked with a "0", and thus designated "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day". ~ Kalki

She is plainly and methodically applying criteria entirely extraneous to the merits of the quotes themselves in ranking them, in a quite irrational and improper abuse of the most extreme of the available rankings. I request that other admins recognize that the criteria she has been attempting to apply, advocate and copiously imply to be validly established by various postings, are actually disruptive and detrimental to the genuinely and sincerely contributive efforts of many others, including myself, and to join me in requesting, and indeed instructing her to desist from this behavior of irrationally applying such irrelevant criteria, as an improper disregard and disruption of the many-years-long rational applications of these rankings by most others. I also believe she should be officially requested to remove or alter all the "0" rankings justified merely by the criteria that material from EITHER the "source" or nominator had been used previously for that date, as being an innately inappropriate use of the "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" designation. I certainly would not seek to forbid her from using the "0" ranking for legitimately valid reasons, with which it has long been used, such as the clear falseness or the perceived foulness of a statement, or its lack of correct or reliable citations.

There are also matters of lesser importance, one of which I will specify here. As I have been the selector of the QOTD here since 2004, developed the ranking system in use without any significant controversy as to my selections made with it in all the years since it was developed until the current ones which arose after I did not select a quote JessRek6 had suggested for a recent day, it is is certainly not necessary to expressly specify on each and every QOTD that they were "selected by Kalki", as she has begun to do on several pages, and I request that I be joined in requesting her to cease in this activity also, though it is of clearly lesser consequence. Even so, such a procedure of specifically identifying every QOTD I select as having been selected by me from the available options is no more necessary or proper than it would be for each and every quote on every page be specified as "provided by User:WHOEVER happened to actually post it." It simply adds to distracting and generally unneeded and useless information.

I welcome consideration and discussion of the matters involved, and hope that we can soon come to agreements. I will be notifying her of this discussion also, so that she can respond as to her understandings, and any rationale or motive she might wish to present regarding her actions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Can we take a step back and think about how ridiculous it is that we have a fight over this and we've written a novel on this page? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I...yeah...if you want to foster some type of collaborative discussion, you're going to have to start with comments that are less than 1,000 words. GMGtalk 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of my past statements, which I have conceded have sometimes been worded a bit more harshly than necessary have been criticized as having been made "without evidence", which I actually believe to be an error. The immediate remarks might not be directly attached to what I perceive as very copious available evidence, but I have agreed it is proper that I should temper my remarks, and be prepared to provide any statements I make with directly associated evidence.
My initial comments were roughly 7,400 words characters (thus roughly 1,480 words), simply describing the situations which exist on a few pages and providing links to these, for those who wish to examine the specific evidence of my assertions. I confess I am a person very prone to very complex thoughts, and thus sometimes prone to making very complex and precise expressions in trying to indicate some matters as accurately and honestly as I can, in such ways as I believe can be adequately understood by others. I do not wish to clutter the minds of others needlessly with many observations such as are currently in my mind, so I will close now. Thank you for your existing attention to this matter, and I hope we can come to agreements upon it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of wit, but more to the point, being unable to engage in a community discussion with something other than 1,000 to 4,000 word comments is itself disruptive in a way, and stifles the ability of a broad range of community members to participate. GMGtalk 18:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a list of diffs to edits which you claim violate policy or guideline or demonstrate some other abuse or misuse. Thank you in advance for your concise reply. JessRek6 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe that after the above remarks and responses most people could easily perceive your request as somewhat facetious or an even more laughable attempt to feign belief of an inadequacy of evidence being presented here. Instead of my adding a further clutter of "diffs" of your extensive edits anyone could simply use the available links to the mentioned pages and examine them, and anyone actually wishing to examine the many available "diffs" more meticulously can simply browse through the recent history of those very few pages. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
@Kalki: Do you understand why statements like, "I believe that after the above remarks and responses most people could easily perceive your request as somewhat facetious or an even more laughable attempt to feign belief of an inadequacy of evidence being presented here." are not helpful? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: Is that a "no", then? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
IF you REALLY want to get into disputes about it, I can and DO understand MANY reasons why MANY "sincere observations are quite obviously often not helpful" — and decided to rapidly strike this one out, in compliance with your expressed concern regarding it. I am also very familiar with MANY reasons why they are not WELCOME by many people, and am obviously often willing to accommodate and defer to their express concerns — even if I genuinely do not actually agree with all of them, I can and am willing to be extensively accommodating, so long as it does not violate my own or anyone else's actual integrity. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: Then the answer is no. It's not helpful not because of its sincerity (this is obviously a self-serving way of interpreting this) but because it's more rambling from you. If you string together enough Latin-derived words, it's not like you're right all of the sudden. I actually was on your side in regards to editing the template above and then you went off the rails and wrote a novel that no one on Earth is going to read. I expect admins to have an ability to communicate with other users and be accommodating and clear; you're displaying the exact opposite here. Let me encourage you in the spirit of collegiality to take a step back and not post here for at least a bit. Nothing is being accomplished here and no one is reading all of your word salad. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I defer to your expressed displays of wisdom. I had been almost prepared to leave several times, including just now, but will be doing so soon. I hope we can both better and more happily communicate sometime in the future. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: You may be right - her sudden edit on Wikiquote:Quote of the day seems to be inappropriate, which means I’m neutral, with a weak support for the block. (Josephine W. Talk) 06:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
I just got online moments ago, and read your comment. I want to make clear I am NOT requesting any form of block of JessRek6 at this time, as I don’t believe such measures are as yet necessary, but I am simply asking for extensive recognition that there IS actually a very significant problem with many of her recent edits, current activity and apparent intentions. Thank you for expressing your opinion. I actually plan to be posting a notice to my talk page indicating I suddenly anticipate having VERY little time to spend here for the next week and especially the next few days. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 07:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I see your point, Kalki. It's clear to me now that JessRek6 intends good faith. (Josephine W. Talk) 08:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

Long overdue closure of vote for deletion-Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jo Moseli SekimonyoEdit

Technically, this vote closed five months ago but no action has been taken. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@GPL93: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Incivility from an administratorEdit

Please see User talk:Kalki#Please strike through comments involving Nazism. Please engage there to spare this noticeboard as per the instructions above on this noticeboard. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Diffs at linked talk page section. JessRek6 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Diffs below. JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, JessRek6. Nazi quotes are definitely allowed, as wikimedia was designed for everyone to freely share their knowledge. I’m with you on this topic. (Josephine W. Talk) 00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC))
I believe there are various forms of confusing statements here. I believe that JessRek6 is accusing of me of incivility in providing very clear evidence of very misleading deceptions on her part, and at times declaring them to be such, and in making such statements as:
  • "There is no extensive "wall of text" in my most recent responses to your remarks, simply relatively short and very to-the-point assertions and examples of that which I address with sincere civility and good faith in the potential for most people to develop capacities to engage with others in such sincere civility as does not preclude or forbid honest observations or criticisms."
  • "Any insistence that any person should ever surrender to or simply accommodate what are very clearly demands of blatantly displayed deceitfulness are among the most offensive comments I believe could ever be made to any human being by any other. I do not demand you strike them out — but instead simply assert that they testify very clearly to many aspects of your evident intentions, attitudes and behavior regarding many things."
As to the title of the section, JessRek6 titled the section on my talkpage which she refers to as "instructions" to me, not I. She has also been responsible for initiating MOST of the sections currently on it, not I, and I indicate truthfully that I perceive most of these to have been "apparently prompted" because I did not happen to use a particular quote which she had proposed regarding "a passionate listing of examples of BS (Bullshit) as the QOTD on the 17th of last month" (which is an accurate description of the quote which lists forms of declared "BS"), and I actually preferred another of more moderate and temperate nature, which had application to broader issues, as well as those mentioned in the quote she wished to be used. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
It’s not clear what you mean by the above comment. Can you express it in a more easy way for me to understand since I am Chinese? Thanks.(Josephine W. Talk) 06:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)) + @JessRek6: Please reply the comments I made on my talk page, thanks. (Josephine W. Talk) 06:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC))  Y Done JessRek6 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I am well aware of many of the problems involved in translations, and also that sorting these out properly can be even more difficult when even in the original language expressions are not used properly, or used misleadingly. In my own comments I was speaking towards anyone concerned with these matters about important aspects of remarks JessRek6 and myself. I am not sure of the significance of some of your remarks, nor entirely to whom they are directed at times, but I believe that in all of them I can recognize the genuine desire to be considerate of others in many ways. I do not actually recognize such genuine desire in many of the statements of JessRek6, and many of the confusions hers could produce seem to be deliberately intended results. As I have indicated many times recently, in relatively brief remarks, I have many urgent reasons not to attend to many matters here for very long. I do hope everyone involved or considering these matters can and will actually sort through the existing confusions, and that eventually a more clearly understood and generally charitable state of affairs can be firmly established. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 09:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

DiffsEdit

...you are actually repeating one of the most prominent strategies of the previously mentioned editor who was most prolific in suggesting militaristic, pro-authoritarian and Nazi quotes to the pages, and that is simply a FACT...

...I mentioned an editor whose tactics in some instances were identical in their extremes and particular to yours — but you have actually recently exceeded even some of his extremes in regard to those. He happened to sometimes zealously promote Nazi quotes for QOTD...

DiscussionEdit

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You are again clearly REPEATING your recurring practice of providing portions of quotes craftily edited to make them seem to imply they indicate something they do NOT, and within their actual context they are at times clearly being used in rejecting or REFUTING such claims as you have recurrently made. To these you add links to "diffs" by which some people might notice such things, but I find MOST people do not actually examine these extensively or carefully, if at all, and I am very familiar with such uses of this misleading presentation process, having encountered many deceptive uses of it in the past. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Please strike through the most outrageous of your comments, and demonstrate to the community you have some understanding of our civility norms. JessRek6 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope that you can soon come to recognize the most outrageous of your comments, and demonstrate you have some genuine understanding of civility. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
Then may you provide your understandings of civility, Kalki and JessRek6? Like JessRek6 posted before, I would like some diffs of nonhelpful edits. I seem to be neutral currently. (Josephine W. Talk) 06:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC))
Our civility norms are documented here WQ:PG and here WQ:NPA. Diffs are above. JessRek6 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
There are many notions of proper civility and improper disregard, derision, denigration, defamation and desecration of it, but my own notions of the utmost forms of genuine civility correspond with major aspects of ethical integrity and a deep and abiding respect for Humanity and the capacities for most human beings to manifest genuine ethical integrity with honest compassion and compassionate honesty and to oppose any endeavors to unjustly or needlessly constrain or harm the lives or proper rights of anyone. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I will likely respond further when I am able - and when those involved have a chance to fully provide their responses, but my initial take is that this has gotten blown way out of proportion. I do not believe that Kalki equated JessRek6 with Nazis - perhaps it could have been worded better, but I believe the intent was to say that tactics used in the discussion reminded Kalki of those used by someone else in the past (who happened to favor quotes from former Nazis). I will reserve further comment as I am unable to spend more time at the moment. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems like inappropriate behavior where Kalki has been hotheaded a little bit but I am not seeing any actions that warrant an indefinite block. I have also publicly questioned his fitness as an admin here and I think he has made missteps but this does not warrant the proposed solution below. To be frank, there is no way that I am going to read thru all of this so if someone wants to provide me a handful of diffs that show otherwise, then that's great. The two I saw above were flimsy for an indefinite block of an active admin. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, even as we speak, the target talk page is getting longer and longer, as content from other pages is copied in, further frustrating investigation. Please read the two diffs above. You wrote, "active admin". How is that relevant? Our civility norms apply to all editors. Admins are expected to lead by example on all behavioral norms. If anything, behavioral norms are more important for admins. I am supposed to be able to participate without harassment by personal attacks. A lack of active admins does not warrant a lowering of our standards with respect to our behavioral norms. The goal of the proposal is not punishment, is not the block: the goal is to have the editor recognize their personal attacks and demonstrate their understanding. This editor has learned other of our norms in the past, such as our multiple account policy, but only slowly, and under protest, and now they need to clearly demonstrate they have learned and understand our civility norm. If in your view the proposal is unwarranted, what is your proposal? I would welcome any proposal that includes some demonstration of understanding such as striking through. JessRek6 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Because someone who does a lot of good things and a few bad ones is different from someone who only does bad ones. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No amount of constructive edits give license to personal attacks. No one is so irreplaceable they can behave however they want. No one is saying anyone only does bad edits. Please focus on the two diffs and what our response should be. What is your plan for making Wikiquote safe? An active admin may pepper their talk page with comments comparing others to Nazis? If I want to contribute to Wikiquote, I need to put up with personal attacks from editors with more edits than me? 17:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. As I wrote, I don't think these two diffs are enough to show that someone should be indefinitely blocked. Some poor wording and some interaction with a user that I think an admin shouldn't have but you're vastly overplaying your hand with this response. You should not put up with personal attacks, no. This thread has gone on far, far, far too long: let's all please get back to actually editing the quotation directory. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the area of agreement as you see it? The proposal is a block, to last only as long as an administrator of Wikiquote insists on their right to compare others to Nazis. They can end this discussion, or end the block at any time a simple demonstration of their understand our civility norms, by striking through their personal attacks. This thread was opened 5 March. This is a serious issue demanding administrator intervention. JessRek6 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
What you are either not rationally registering or merely not acknowledging is that MOST of the respondents here are clearly recognizing that your CLAIMS that I compared you to Nazis is simply FALSE, and a VERY MISLEADING representation or perhaps genuinely MISTAKEN assessment of what actually OCCURRED. I was just moments ago responding more extensively to these assertions elsewhere, where you recently repeated them with new variants, and I believe these false assertions should be countered — though I recognizing some might perceive me to be simply responding to trolling there is danger that some individuals being more casually observant might actually be misled by the repetitious vigor your quite FALSE allegations. As I state there also: "Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions." ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Kalki is without question a first-class oddball, but comparing the conduct of one editor with another who happened to have a fetish for Nazi quotes is not the same as calling that editor a Nazi or suggesting that they have a similar fetish. BD2412 T 05:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I thank everyone for their recent remarks regarding these issues. Other than my own, I had not witnessed any definite pushback at all against some very misleading or definitely false assertions and allegations against me, which is one reason, with one notably extensive exception, that I attempted relatively brief but vigorous responses every time there were repeated attempts at such. I hope that these discussions can remain more moderate now, and can soon come to a satisfactory close, within the coming week or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 05:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, @BD2412: On Wikiquote, I am my editing behavior. There is no useful distinction between "You are a Nazi." and "Your edits remind me of a Nazi", and there is no distinction whatsoever when you are on the receiving end, let me tell you. Is it your understanding of WQ:NPA, that one editor may compare another to a Nazi, if it is couched in a sufficiently indirect, oblique manner, or buried in baroque language? JessRek6 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
How to recognize personal attacks, from WP:NPA:
What is considered to be a personal attack?
JessRek6 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It is YOU who have actually called another editor a "Nazi", and a "Nazi sympathizer" — and though I had many vigorous disputes with him, I believe I never called that editor either. It might seem very convenient and useful for YOU to do so and imply that I did — but such things simply were NOT done by me — and for you to continue to repeatedly imply or insist that it did, in regard to that other editor OR to you, despite the actual record clearly showing otherwise, as others who have sufficiently examined it now have several times indicated, and to seek ways for me to be penalized for what I actually did not say or do is simply the latest of your own very unjust and misleading personal attacks against me. YOU KEEP REPEATING SUCH THINGS AS I DID NOT SAY. You keep INVENTING new ways to imply that what was said is what you want to PORTRAY it to have been, and fiction follows fiction in the variations of such things as you say were said or implied — by such OTHER things as ALSO were NOT actually said. Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, comparing an editor to a Nazi is not poor word choice, it is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
My point was that I do not believe that Kalki did in fact compare you to a Nazi. The comparison was between your actions and the actions of another person that also happened to favor quotes from Nazis. That does not logically mean that you were being called a Nazi. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412:, comparing an editor to a Nazi is not an idiosyncrasy, it is not a fetish; it is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I echo UDScott's analysis. BD2412 T 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite blockEdit

Propose an indefinite block (with the privilege to edit their own talk page as per usual) until they strike through personal attacks.

  • Support. Under all circumstances and in all contexts it is unacceptable for one editor to call another editor a Nazi, or for one editor to say they sincerely believe another editor resembles a Nazi, or for one editor to say another editor's edit behavior reminds them of an editor they thought a Nazi sympathizer. Incivility is a problem, the inability to recognize incivility is a serious problem, and the inability of an administrator to recognize their own incivility is a very serious problem. Inability to recognize blatant incivility in one's own comments is a competency issue and a disqualifier from editing privileges. JessRek6 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As I have to some extent already demonstrated with several responses in recent days these allegations are clearly FALSE, and appear to me to be maliciously contrived slanders, and very misleading statements to support such slanders, on the part of JessRek6, and later in the day, after I return from a necessary excursion, I am willing to provide further elaborations more clearly proving them to be. I do NOT have time to do that right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
  • Opposed (as the apparent target of this "proposed action"). In my initial very rushed reading and response, earlier, it was evident by placement that these accusative assertions were directed towards me, but on examining them further I realize that though there are actually severe allegations apparently indicated here, presently there is nearly as much a deficiency of clear identifications made in this series of misleading statements as there is a deficiency of truth and accuracy in many of them, as regards me.
A summary of the 3 sentences which currently exist in the above "Support" assertions, by the person who proposed the block:
  1. Though some relatively reasonable sounding assertions exist in it, EVERY implicit allegation (to the extent they can be assumed to be directed towards me) in the first sentence of the above assertions is actually FALSE. There are some which might seem plausible to those who make only casual examination of the portions of some statements she has presented at times, but as stated, they are actually and literally FALSE. I have NEVER called her a Nazi, NEVER said I sincerely believe her to resemble a Nazi, and don’t believe I ever actually referred to ANYONE at all in these recent conversations as a Nazi sympathizer, and probably no one at all, ever on this wiki.
  2. In regard to her second sentence, I can actually AGREE with EVERY statement of it, but not the apparently intended targeting of some of them, for though incivility is definitely a problem, I perceive that rather than I (or any other admin), it is JessRek6 and her extreme accusations and apparently punitive aims which have increasingly demonstrated an actual tendency towards aggressive incivility — and her most extreme accusations seem to be slanderous FABRICATIONS she hopes at least some others will simply accept as if entirely fact.
  3. I would actually be more temperate and charitable than she is in her third sentence, for though I definitely do AGREE that "Inability to recognize blatant incivility in one's own comments is a competency issue" I would not permit merely that to serve as an absolute "disqualifier" in regard to her or anyone else retaining editing privileges. Only worse deficiencies of cognizance like blatant defiance after official warnings against trolling or such possible directives as to cease from repetitiously posting harassing accusations, derisions, slanders, or even implicitly extortionate demands to user's talk pages should merit a block.
I am presently confining myself here to direct rebuttals of a few assertions in these most recent allegations. Others might follow on my own talk pages within the next few days. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Your reasons are more important than your vote. JessRek6 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think this page should start archiving itself. I can’t stand rolling the mouse that long. I think 2.1-3, 2.5-7, 2.9, 2.11, 2.13, and 2.15 sections should all be archived. Ideas? (Josephine W. Talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
Please start a separate thread for other topics. JessRek6 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed finding: comparing an editor to Nazis is a personal attackEdit

Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines states:

The policies of Wikiquote's sister project, Wikipedia, usually apply equally well to Wikiquote.

Specifically, the following aspect of the civility policy of Wikipedia Wikipedia:No personal attacks also applies on Wikiquote:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

Comments? Wikiquote administrators, please weigh in. Thank you in advance. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that you HERE have entirely REPEATED a statement I responded to above, and since you did so, I repeat my response here also, to aid those who quite understandably are not inclined to read through this mass of contentions thoroughly:
It is YOU who have actually called another editor a "Nazi", and a "Nazi sympathizer" — and though I had many vigorous disputes with him, I believe I never called that editor either. It might seem very convenient and useful for YOU to do so and imply that I did — but such things simply were NOT done by me — and for you to continue to repeatedly imply or insist that it did, in regard to that other editor OR to you, despite the actual record clearly showing otherwise, as others who have sufficiently examined it now have several times indicated, and to seek ways for me to be penalized for what I actually did not say or do is simply the latest of your own very unjust and misleading personal attacks against me. YOU KEEP REPEATING SUCH THINGS AS I DID NOT SAY. You keep INVENTING new ways to imply that what was said is what you want to PORTRAY it to have been, and fiction follows fiction in the variations of such things as you say were said or implied — by such OTHER things as ALSO were NOT actually said. Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎
Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Recognizing VERY early on in the tenor of your first series of remarks on my page that you had apparent intentions of being deceptive in various ways, I archived my entire talk page in a way I had been neglecting to do for YEARS, clearing it of almost all other discussions to make way for what I anticipated might be extensive contentions, and they already have been to a FAR greater extent than I had even expected. That ENTIRE talk page currently provides a VERY extensive body of EVIDENCE of the apparent aims and actual falsehood of MANY of your statements, and especially the most extreme ones. Contentions against them have already consumed very much of my time in an extraordinarily busy period of URGENT activities I actually MUST completely attend to within the coming week, and whenever these current contentions finish I intend to archive all of them in a sub-page of my talk pages as a permanent record. As I now have many other things I must attend to today, I will be leaving soon, but I will be back within a few hours, and I hope that there will not be much more for me to address here today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Please provide a very much more concise body of evidence of your claims. Such claims without diffs are just personal attacks. JessRek6 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That too is simply another FALSE and IRRATIONAL statement. For a slightly less concise response, see below, where I repeat the statement I make in bold here, in response to your repetition of the entire remark you made here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. One editor comparing another to a Nazi is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. These personal attacks must be struck as if they never existed. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read the above remarks by myself and others more thoroughly: I am NOT the one making personal attacks here. She is repeatedly making FALSE and ultimately baseless claims by various distortions and misrepresentations of the actual FACTS of the matters, and when she BEGAN doing so, I several times asserted she was NOT assessing things truly or properly — and these remarks themselves she has quoted portions of to make them SEEM to indicate the exact OPPOSITE of what they truly declared. I hope that you will reconsider your remarks and strike them, and make a more informed and considerate decision. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
As I stated immediately above, I have made many accommodations to others who might wish to examine many of our recent discussions and your distortions and deceptions about many aspects of them, and presently my "ENTIRE talk page currently provides a VERY extensive body of EVIDENCE of the apparent aims and actual falsehood of MANY of your statements, and especially the most extreme ones." I do not expect most people to peruse it thoroughly but the evidence is copious. I will very soon be leaving, and this is probably my last remark until I return. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a very much more concise body of evidence of your claims. Such claims without diffs are just personal attacks. JessRek6 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That too is simply another FALSE and IRRATIONAL statement (as I stated of its earlier iteration above). You apparently are are relying upon a dubious assumption that the more evidence provided, the more most people will avoid examining it in full, and thus the more it can be effectively ignored or denied relevance by those wishing to exploit understandable ignorance and common indifference. And also the unfortunately often more effective strategies of those who recognize that constant repetition of even blatantly false assertions can make them seem credible to many. Unfortunately for those who regularly seek to be deceptive, not all people are so easily duped, and sufficient numbers of people often DO examine matters sufficiently to see the copious evidence of the falsehoods and irrationality of many of such assertions and claims. On my talk page I actually do intend to produce far more succinct summaries of things to provide easier comprehension of the disputes currently upon it, probably with at least a few such "diffs" links as you repetitiously demand, as will counter many of your deceptive assertions, within the next week — but that will take time which I cannot entirely spare for at least the next few days, and I don’t intend to work on it extensively until AFTER many urgent tasks which MUST be finished within a few days are completed. That is about all I can reply at present, as I must be leaving in a few minutes, and will probably be gone for much of the day. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I...don't really at all understand why you are taking the time to copy and paste several pages of discussions on your talk page. These are all publicly available discussions. It's not as if you are transcribing the text of an email that the rest of us don't have access to. GMGtalk 12:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I am doing it quite aware that MOST people are NOT going to take the time to trace through all the "diffs" that have been or might be provided, and all the various pages JessRek6 has begun discussions on — and I intend to make sections for all these disputes available on ONE current page, and then eventually one archive page, for the people who do want to at least examine some of the various details, and check on the accuracy of various assertions made. As I stated above (before an edit conflict) I have to be leaving in a few minutes — and am a bit more rushed right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
I don't understand why on March 9, 2020 you used collapse templates to hide the two diffs supplied above [diff]. JessRek6 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In that case, Support rescinded. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

ProposalEdit

Let's drop it and get back to editing. I don't see anything constructive coming from this discussion, just acrimony. Let's be civil and constructive here: this is supposed to be fun. All the time everyone is spending here talking is time we aren't spending adding quotations to this directory. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I would support a community restriction on random SHOUTING in indeciferably FORMATTED comments. GMGtalk 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Administrator strike-through and warningEdit

Propose administrator strike-through of personal attacks on the target talk page and an administrator warning to Kalki regarding our policy of no personal attacks.

Comments?

  • Support as second choice. JessRek6 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to stopEdit

User:JessRek6, you have to stop this discursive pleading. The community here has given you plenty of opportunities to air your grievances and the more you post, the less support you have. I understand that things can get heated and all of us do or say things we sometimes regret but this incessant harping on this issue is frankly just a disruptive tempter tantrum. As someone who has been entrusted with helping manage this community, I don't see the value in these threads and I am letting you know that this needs to end. The administrators here do not have a consensus for your preferred action, we will not, and this post is just tiresome. I'm closing this entire discussion to anyone other than an admin for the purposes of reopening it with something new and constructive (seems doubtful): i.e. Non-admins, do not edit this discussion any further unless it is reopened by another admin. Please go back to actually editing the directory of quotations and let's leave this be. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree with Koavf. This has become overwrought. BD2412 T 19:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Can i create Jesus related article in Wikiquote?Edit

  • For future reference to other admins, if a user shows up here, or pretty much anywhere else on any project complaining about religious user names and especially about Bonadea, they are definitely a sock of w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte and should just be blocked on sight. GMGtalk 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Releasing deleted pageEdit

Hi there, OTRS has received a request for releasing a deleted page to them. They claim to be the page subject. Would the admins be okay with that? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: What queue is this in? I can't see it. GMGtalk 13:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
sister-projects::wikiquote. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
For others, we resolved this via email. GMGtalk 23:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Blatant LTA vandal...Edit

2601:81:C402:AD20:0:0:0:0/64 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) I request serious action be taken against this wanton vandal and its series of IP addresses. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting a pageEdit

Hi all. 2 of the largest page in this wiki (Elvis Presley & Barack Obama) have a size of ~1.1Mb and ~900kb. I suggest splitting them up for readability purposes. Minorax (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Probably a good idea, especially for those who have limited internet access. Not sure what would be the best way to do it though. GMGtalk 17:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I would suggest splitting it the following ways
      • Elvis - A-M & N-Z
      • Obama - 2010-2014 & 2015-2019
    • Those sections to be taken out are relatively big enough to warrant a subpage. Minorax (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: Shall I go ahead with it? Minorax (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It would not split the pages evenly, and large pages would remain, but it would provide a better representation of what was being sought to simply break out the sections "Quotes about Elvis" and "Quotes about Obama" into separate and prominently linked pages. The same strategy should probably also be applied to the current page for Donald Trump. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I mean, I don't have any privileged opinion, and I don't have an easy solution. Whatever the community is fine with. But I try to keep mobile editors in mind, as well as those with limited internet access, and these pages probably need some type of solution. GMGtalk 14:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Kalki, GreenMeansGo: Seems like removing the quotes about Person X is a better option. Also, maybe use Template:W on these pages instead of [[en:Page 1|Page 1]]? Although it seems redundant but it will reduce the page size. (see [1]). Minorax (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
      • If pages are going to be split, I definitely would prefer that they be split topically or chronologically, rather than by any alphabetical formula. BD2412 T 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Mario Loud 70Edit

We have another persistent and unrepentant vandal on our hands, with sockpuppets to boot.

Mario Loud 70 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
86.190.1.253 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
86.189.228.28 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
Spongebob Loud 1999 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

I request serious action be taken against this vandal, and that all pages it vandalized receive indefinite protection. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Attention is required, as this vandal refuses to comply with the messages we sent to its talk page. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Christian M. (2016)Edit

This user refuses to comply with Wikiquotes rules on quote limitations. His edits to The Lion King (2019 film) were not only vandalized, but they were also way beyond the limit of what Wikiquote allows for this film. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Attention required on IP vandalEdit

86.173.7.223 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
86.145.71.176 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
86.146.109.104 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
86.176.136.204 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)
210.55.77.59 (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log)

Reverted several edits by the first IP today and found the others ones in the histories. Please review their activities and take necessary actions, thanks.--Tigerzeng (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like these are either stale or locked. The math works out in an unforunate way, that I won't get into publicly. GMGtalk 12:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.245.34.204Edit

Spamming. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they may have given up a few minutes ago, but blocked for one day in case they've only gone to get a cup of tea. Looks like it is a mobile IP, so no surprises if they pop up under a different address. If so, we can look at running the numbers on a range block. GMGtalk 13:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)