Wikiquote

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/017

< Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

User:Gregcaletta

edit

Gregcaletta is a w:WP:SPA account, only purpose on Wikiquote is repeatedly spamming link to someone's personal blog, at a quote page of a living person, Julian Assange:

  1. 02:51, 27 June 2010
  2. 02:04, 2 July 2010
  3. 03:32, 2 July 2010

Gregcaletta Refuses to wait for consensus for the unreliable link to a personal blog website, instead causing disruption at quote page of a living person, repeatedly adding back the inappropriate link (appears to be some guy's blog created with w:WordPress).

Protection request

edit

Eleventh Doctor should be protected, as the page is already at LOQ capacity and IPs keep adding in unpithy quotes (I had to remove nearly an entire section which was basically a game transcript). Will (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portal (game), too, which actually was a transcript of the game. Will (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done, both, semiprot, for 2 weeks. -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/MuggleCast

edit

The above can probably be closed. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 06:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:I am better than you

edit

Please take a look at this users contributions. They are clearly here to be disruptive. Tiptoety talk 06:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Blocked as an inappropriate username: "Your username is not a vehicle to attack other users with whom you have a disagreement. Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users." ~ Ningauble 13:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 10 August 1010

edit

I have posted QOTD selections for a few days ahead once again — but was too late to avoid rolling protection on this one 10 August:

    The one thing we know about torture is that it was never designed in the first place to get at the actual truth of anything; it was designed in the darkest days of human history to produce false confessions in order to annihilate political and religious dissidents. And that is how it always works: it gets confessions regardless of their accuracy.

~ Andrew Sullivan ~

   

An admin will need to post this to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 10, 2010 ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arrogant Teenager

edit

User:Arrogant Teenager has a claim to be an administrator, yet from looking at contributions, I think the expression "Not!" would be more likely. I cannot remove the template as the filter calls it blanking a page. An admin may wish to have an attempt. Billinghurst 06:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted it instead. -- Cirt (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requests

edit

I am asking to determine if these are the same user, to highlight suspected multiple votes on Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Shaped by God‎. Thanks. ~ UDScott 20:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these five users are unrelated.--Jusjih 02:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So they are meatpuppets instead of sockpuppets. Still a group from whom their first ever activity on Wikiquote (and apparently on any Wikimedia project) is to contest the deletion of a work which all of the editors in the discussion who have any history of working here agree should be deleted. BD2412 T 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the result slightly in a different way - Tself and Selfadam share one element, so they could be identical or very close to each other. They are likely to be meatpuppets. --Aphaia 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request: Appelphilia

edit

A consistent long-term pattern of editing (and recent "coincidences") leads me to believe that most of the following single purpose accounts, as well as IP contributors in ranges at 71.167..., 72.89..., & 96.246... (partial list available on request), may actually be just one or two individuals promoting someone on multitudinous theme pages, currently numbering nearly a hundred (discounting a handful of false hits in the linked search):

(Cf. comments on these contributions at Talk:Fundamentalist Christianity a year ago.) Checkusers are welcome to contact me via email for behavioral evidence that might be imprudent to describe on-wiki. Thanks ~ Ningauble 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed that at different time, ElCaltoro = Surgerius most recently, ElCaltoro = TRATTOOO earlier, and ElCaltoro = Hardingerest earlier, while Surgerius, TRATTOOO and Hardingerest do not have had the same IPs. Details are sent to checkuser-l. No matches are found for others so I cannot tell.Jusjih 04:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this. In light of confirmation that the two principal contributors of Appelisms, TRATTOOO and ElCaltoro, are one and the same, and in light of strong similarities in distinctive editing patterns, including simultaneous changes of editing pattern across all Appelphiliacs, I now believe that the entire Appel fan club is comprised of just one person. I propose to tag these accounts as confirmed (3) or suspected (15) sockpuppets of TRATTOOO (designating this the sockmaster because it has the greatest number of edits), and to begin removing Mr. Appel's bloggeries &c. from theme articles. ~ Ningauble 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, regarding another venue: There is an interesting parallel at Wikipedia, where Mr. Appel is quoted and/or cited in 200+ articles where, in most cases, there are far more reliable sources for the points being made than somebody's blog. It might appear that the purpose is to promote the person rather than to provide reliable information about articles' topics. ~ Ningauble 13:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~ Ningauble 13:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as reincarnated ElCaltoro based on checkuser results. --Aphaia 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~ Ningauble 18:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No technical evidence of identification. I sent a report to checkuser-l. Feedback from the team will be appreciated. --Aphaia 10:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also IP information, at Wikiquote:Village_pump#RFC:_Appel_Quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Zátopek

edit

Could an admin please restore this page, it was deleted on the grounds of being unsourced even though I had sourced some of the quotes. --88.111.40.114 21:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved your appeal and reset the clock for proposed deletion. You have 7 days to add verifiable sources to avoid further deletion. Thanks.--Jusjih 00:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article a bit. Attribution of putatively famous remarks in obituaries seem like adequate citations to me. The two later sources without bylines are very weak attributions, and better sources are desirable. ~ Ningauble 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term abuse sock, please block

edit

User:Verywords2. Thanks, NawlinWiki 01:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (admin, en.wikipedia)[reply]

Done. --Aphaia 10:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juke Adams

edit
  Resolved: Globalled by stewards; disruptive edits reverted.

Continued pov-pushing over at wikipedia:User:Juke Adams. I advise a one-strike rule for him. TeleComNasSprVen 06:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The man who is trying to get me blocked has been continually harrassing me and stalking me. I'm putting rational facts that promote rational ideas like Evolution. It's just sickening what is going on. Juke Adams 06:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but would you mind resolving your problems over WP instead of dragging out your conflicts here? Thank you! --Eaglestorm 13:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Gadget - UserMessages

edit
  • UserMessages: Adds a script for welcoming registered and IP users, with {{Welcome}} and {{Welcomeip}}. (See bottom left, below toolbox.)
Enjoy! -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local IP block exemption for User:Kalki

edit

An IP address used by Kalki has been globally blocked for a period of one year due to checkuser concerns about cross-wiki sockpuppet farming.[1] Although Kalki was locally blocked on Wikiquote recently, that block has expired and the registered account is nominally allowed to edit Wikiquote. Unless there is a consensus to reblock Kalki for an extended period, I propose to grant a local IP block exemption to allow Kalki to edit Wikiquote. This will only affect the one registered account, and will only be effective at Wikiquote. If there are no objections, I will be doing this soon.~ Ningauble 15:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigating further, this does not appear to be a global IP block or a local hard-block. It may be an autoblock resulting from the indefinite blocking of named sockpupets. Perhaps Cirt would like to clarify. I still propose to grant an IP block exemption for editing with this registered account. ~ Ningauble 18:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it has something to do with this block. And if that is the case, the block parameters can just be set to remove the auto-block on the underlying IPs. Giving a confirmed sockpuppeteer IPblock exempt just sounds like a bad idea to me. Tiptoety talk 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tiptoety, giving a confirmed sockpuppeteer that has amassed a sockfarm of over 200 socks across multiple Wikimedia project sites is a bad idea, especially when that sockpuppeteer has openly refused as recently as today, to be restricted to one account. As the IPs that are autoblocked help prevent socking, this is probably not the best option either. -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Tiptoety – That block of User:Kalki has expired, so I suspect it has to do with the puppet blocks. There are quite a lot of these blocks, so I don't think it is as simple as changing the settings on one. I do agree that an IP exemption is a questionable proposition, but I was not sure exactly how the IP block came about. Revising the block settings is probably a better solution if that will do the trick.
@Cirt – It does not appear to have been your original intent to place a long-term block on Kalki's IP connection while announcing only a one week block on the user account,[2] so it may have been an unintended effect of using default block settings. If the IP block was unintentional, would you be willing to update the settings on the many blocks you placed so industriously? ~ Ningauble 00:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The settings should not be changed on the socks, because these settings are intended specifically to prevent the sockmaster from creating new sock farms, something you should note the sockpuppeteer has refused to stop doing. -- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is inconsistent, or perhaps you have changed your mind somewhere in the course of these events. Notwithstanding your comment at the Village Pump,[3] the settings are preventing the underlying person from editing Wikiquote. Are you saying that it was your original intention to ban the person for a year while announcing only a one week block? Are you now saying that it is ok to use the Kalki account only if the person changes IP address? Even though I have been personally aggrieved by some of Kalki's conduct myself, I would still like to treat the person in a fair and reasonable manner. I believe that means being perfectly clear and transparent about how the admin tools are being used – is this a one year ban on the person or not? ~ Ningauble 01:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is a totally incorrect assessment. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that response does not clarify much. However, since nobody else but Tiptoety has expressed any interest in allowing Kalki to edit, at least not by using IP connections to access the account, I guess there is no need for explanation. I have better things to do than to try to make sense of the way this project is being administered. ~ Ningauble 11:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP block exemption is intended to be used for editors caught under IP blocks for socking, that are not actually sockpuppeteers. Kalki is a sockpuppeteer. Kalki has refused to stop socking. So therefore IP block exemption should not be extended to a user that wishes to continue socking. -- Cirt (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please observe that everyone participating in this discussion had shifted to considering modification of the IP block settings rather than giving a blanket IP exception. If you have nothing constructive to say about the two related questions of whether and how the person known as Kalki might be allowed to edit Wikiquote using the nominally unblocked account then, as I said, I have better things to do. ~ Ningauble 14:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

← Finding the IP(s) that are causing the autoblock is easy enough, have Kalki post the block message that she is receiving when she is trying to edit, it will specify an IP. Additionally, running a CU on the account will reveal all the IP(s), including the blocked ones that Kalki is or has used. Being that Kalki's main account is not blocked, I would support editing the block settings to remove the autoblocks that are preventing her from editing and just like always, continue to monitor for other sockpuppets. But, like I said before I do not support granting IPblock exempt. Tiptoety talk 17:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, but wouldn't doing so also make it easier for the sockpuppeteer to create new sockfarms? -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, if the user is able to connect to the account then it would be easier to use, or to abuse.

It is one thing to argue for an extended block on the Kalki account, if that is what you want. It is something else altogether to make the account harder to use by blocking the IP connection of a user who is not blocked. I am not exactly sure what that something else is, but the word "harassment" comes to mind. ~ Ningauble 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is laughable, no. It is merely blocking the IPs that have been used by hundreds of socks across multiple sites. -- Cirt (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The clear disposition to belittle and demean much, if not all that I have done in my seven years here, to assail it, ignore it, obscure it, make it less accessible or actually erase it and delete it, and regularly repeating the simple-minded invective "sockpuppetter", plastering that label everywhere possible, removing much material indicating much of the true character of my contributions, and implying I should simply be labeled nothing more than that for openly persisting in principled dissent against what I consider needless and largely foolish attempts of a few to dictate rules and policies which needlessly and nearly pointlessly restrict or deny long available freedoms here, is quite obviously a case of rather extensive harassment, and I had actually planned to state that myself in rather sterner terms.
I do consider it quite a notable case of harassment and intense bigotry — that being indicated by an apparent unwillingness and even incapacity to acknowledge nearly any merit in one's adversaries, and I glad that I am not the only one who has thus far taken note of that. I am quite willing to acknowledge many points of apparent or actual merit in arguments of my adversaries where they exist, and yet I certainly am not willing to grant to anyone that their presumptions of their positions as exclusively or even primarily ones of merit are anything that anyone else need accept.
To put my adversary's mind somewhat at ease, though I can be harshly critical of much which I encounter, I very rarely aim to be more punitive than is clearly necessary and generally beneficial, and I myself am certainly NOT going to call for his de-sysopping for much recent behavior I consider a far WORSE abuse of admin abilities than anything I had ever even been accused of doing. Even so he has been so intent on emphasizing and exaggerating much that might be reasonably or unreasonably said against me, that I am going to vigorously point out some of what I consider to be his deliberate deceitfulness and destructiveness of much that is good and desirable, and why I consider it such.
I am only briefly responding now from another person's computer, and have not had so much time or opportunity today to work on things here as I thought I might, but shall continue to intermittently prepare material for eventual presentation here on my own computer, concerning some of the issues recently raised or revived. Much that I have been working on regarding other tasks than those presented here are actually such things as being completed, will permit me to speak with much greater candor on matters here, and I look forward to doing so quite soon, in coming days and weeks. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This matter does need to be sorted out in order to get the best outcome for the Community. I agree that editing restrictions are needed, and the previous accounts need blocks. Thank you Cirt for doing these blocks. But since Kalki regularly makes many good edits, I would prefer to find a way to keep him editing on Wikiquote. I'm not certain that we need to continue with the lengthy blocks of the ip addresses especially if Kalki will agree to edit with one account. I'm still hopeful that we will get this agreement from Kalki once the Community speaks to him about the concerns that arise from using multiple accounts. So I want to see how the discussion goes on the VP and his talk page, and see if we can come to an agreement that will fix the situation without lengthy blocks that might cause collateral damage by the lengthy blocks of the ip addresses. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki has refused such an agreement. The community is discussing an ongoing proposal to restrict Kalki to the use of one account. Please see: Wikiquote:Village_pump#Kalki_restriction_proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed

edit

Doing a little clean up (since all the good quotes I know are unsourceable). I have merged Odds On into Michael Crichton and thought I should let someone know to do a history merge. If this is the wrong place to ask, just point me in the right direction. Thenub314 06:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. -- Cirt (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiot Alert"

edit

Please see [4]. I believe it is inappropriate to use such language to refer to any user on Wikiquote. Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The epithet "idiot" certainly seems outside the bounds of civility (and, looking at the more explicit policy at Wikipedia, to fall under the "Rudeness, insults, name-calling" provision). Increased experience would call for a higher standard, not the reverse. -Sketchmoose 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. What should be done about this? -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We should formally adopt the policy as written at Wikipedia and apply it prospectively, beginning with a warning that such incivility should be avoided. On the other hand, in the case of certain edits by this particular IP, the sentiment is understandable, if not warranted. BD2412 T 16:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current policy at Wikipedia is better than the latest draft for Wikiquote, although I think both of them digress and belabor the point more than necessary. ~ Ningauble 16:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can always adopt the 'pedia policy subject to our own changes in the future. BD2412 T 16:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; what needs to be done to effect this? -Sketchmoose 15:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree using the word "idiot" to that specific IP based on its edits. Better warning could be done.--Jusjih 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so we are unanimous that a better warning could have been given, and that this type of behavior by the user that gave the warning was inappropriate. -- Cirt (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Cirt has given so much intense attention to my activities lately, I am sure he has not missed the fact that I had been developing responses to this latest controversy regarding them, which I had been preparing on my newly created page Vox Box and on Chronology, though he makes no mention of this. I certainly would like my comments noted before a decision is made:

23 April 2010 : Though in my own thought processes and many private conversations, I most commonly and regularly refer to all people as angels — in the sense that they are ALL messengers of many forms of significant truth, I also sometimes refer to myself and all others as idiots — in reference to our innately limited capacities to appreciate and honor such facts. In response to increased levels of idiotic vandalism that does not receive an adequate response after several incidents, and no longer having admin tools, I develop a more strongly worded assertion of testimony of the abuses evident on the part of vandals and other idiots of low comprehension, who have not responded to more mildly worded messages. I fully understand that "idiot" is often used as an appropriately intense epithet of condemnation of people who have engaged in contemptible behavior — and certainly do not repudiate its use in such a context, and use it as such, but I have also long used it in a much broader context, whereby even the most intelligent and truly wise of people can be properly and quite safely be called idiots. I have long noted that the most wise of idiots don't much mind being called idiots by other idiots, and often delight in good-naturedly calling each other idiots to keep each other humble, and as actually a show of respect of their strength of character to take little or no offense at such displays of fondness and trust of their ability to transcend any absolutely contemptible implications of the word, while the least wise take intense offense at it, totally immersed in resentment or distaste for its most common connotations. As with other very versatile and often used words, I have also noted that many in the most conniving and hypocritical states of confusion often only take offense at the use of many terms to the extent it is convenient to their own personal aims to do so. Many of these who most strongly object to such words actually go about treating others as infantile idiots who are entirely incapable of developing strength of character and discernment, and must abjectly and absolutely obey them and their pronunciations of judgments — or be severely punished for their defiance of their will and presumptively superior forms of idiocy. I did not so extensively note such things in the comment itself, but I did give some indications of such ideas — and used it quite often for months, with no objections arising from it, and even some mildly amused and respectful responses from those vandals on whom it was used. In November 2010, it was cited as something that should be censured — I do not agree, but I can agree to refrain from using it, until after a period of discussion some acceptable revision of it can be found. Here is the version which existed since 23 April, as of 8 November 2010:
 

This IP address or username appears to have been used by such an idiot as takes pathetic delight in vandalizing pages of a wiki, and thus someone oblivious, ignorant or even in denial and opposition to some essential truths of Reality. May all such idiots eventually be healed of their time-and-life-wasting delusions, and may all the worst forms of idiocy with which they are afflicted come to be diminished by greater levels of awareness of vitally important truths, through the help of people honest and compassionate enough to humbly and courageously declare their particular forms of idiocy to actually be idiocies, and not charming or admirable ones at all — save to people in various states of extreme idiocy. This message is not intended to be an insult to anyone's intelligence, but rather an indication that I suspect some people might actually have more intelligence and capacity for wisdom than they have thus far exhibited in their actions, and to give notice that if anyone wants to experiment responsibly, they can use the sandbox.

Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
Adding patent nonsense to Wikiquote is considered vandalism. When people are not interested in responsibly contributing to the development of the project incidents of their deliberate vandalism can result in their usernames or IP addresses being blocked from editing.
With such honest declarations I am resolved to send what blessings I can, even to some of the more irritating of fools. ~ A fool called Kalki (talk · contributions) 07:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden after the peace symbol is the phrase: "Let there be Peace with Truth, and thus such Honesty, Compassion and general Wisdom as can only grow with respect for Truth."
I could of course make that statement more obvious and easily visible (and perhaps my generally broader use than that of most of the terms "idiot" and "fool" more explicitly apparent in some revision of the message), if that is actually required to prevent it from being construed as being too severe an insult to people's intelligence. I actually consider some people's efforts to totally proscribe such words as "idiot" because of their own very limited comprehensions of their meanings and applicability a far more severe insult or slighting of the intelligence and potential integrity of others. I persist in asserting my right to assert that all people are idiots as well as angels with many forms of truth to deliver to each other in both harsh and gentle ways — and that the most wisely angelic idiots don't seek to constrain others too narrowly to their own inclinations. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is not an isolated incident. Kalki has made a practice of doing this across tens of user talk pages. See for example, [5], where he refers not just to vandals, but to other Wikiquote users in this same fashion. -- Cirt (talk) 13:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the point of how astute your attention to Wikiquote activities have been for many months prior to your editing dispute with me, after which you went on a one person rampage of vengeance for my insolence in not giving you the craven deference you apparently expect from others in your self-appointed role as dictator of rules. I had indeed used the IDIOT ALERT since April — quite effectively it seemed — because even some pernicious vandals seemed amused enough by such candor as they had rarely encountered among face-flattering idiots of other types, to give me more respect than many such face-flatterers often have. I stand by my contentions that the term "idiot" is not innately uncivil — but dictatorial presumptions that one knows best what other people should do ALWAYS are. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is (hopefully) resolved, as Kalki has agreed to refrain from such inappropriate behavior in the future, see [6]. -- Cirt (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Cirt seems inclined to specify ONLY such things as he/she considers worth others attention, (such as his/her own personal will in matters, or that of others most inclined to agree with him/her, without any discussion of anyone of so trivial importance as those who would dare to be dissenters to His/Her Haughtiness), and to rapidly find ways to obscure, minimize, remove or entirely delete much that he/she finds inconvenient to allow others to consider, and has just removed my ENTIRE previous post, I am reposting only a slightly revised portion of what I previously posted, with a link to a full record of relevant discussions at my page Outrages of October - November 2010
The material mentioned was originally posted to my Kalki talk page soon AFTER I had finished composing and posting some of the compositions I posted above — and before anyone else but Cirt had an opportunity to respond to them. As a person of great candor I feel that if subjects are discussed, most of the actual context of relevant discussions should generally be clearly scannable by those who read them, and thus made a full provision of the section to which Cirt refers.
As I do seek to behave in an honorable fashion, I DO agree to fully refrain from alerting people in my previous manner, IF it is truly found innately unsuitable — but as my own assertions had not apparently been perused by anyone other than Cirt before he took it upon himself/herself to removing the notice, I must insist I remain intent on having some form of strongly worded messages for vandals who persist in vandalism, and whom I no longer am provided the tools to block — despite my NEVER having misused those tools in all my years of having them. A few people simply objected to a few of the ways in which the forms of my imaginative efforts, discretion and candor exceed their own, and that was sufficient to create enough suspicion and dis-ease as to prevent my retaining them after a vote of confidence last year. If others find it necessary to ameliorate the apparent harshness of such words, I could be more elaborate on my rather peculiar use of the terms "angels" and "idiots" as proper designations for EVERYONE in such a notice. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 15:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Now this should hopefully be resolved. -- Cirt (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just checking in here briefly, when I noticed something I had forgotten before, when in one of the top sections on the current page I saw IDIOT ALERT — which I plainly posted here soon after I BEGAN to use the notice which now has become the target of someone I consider a controversy-monger. I plainly ANNOUNCED here my usage of this IDIOT ALERT when I BEGAN to use it in April of this year, and if Cirt has only recently taken so much notice of this project which he/she so arrogantly has affected of late, with demands and revisions, as to NOT have noticed this announcement or this activity, it clearly shows how much social, rational and ethical cohesion have deteriorated since I was an admin — and one who did NOT presume to command other people without authorization — or SUPPORT such dictatorial attitudes — as SOME have done. I continue to assert that despite my somewhat odd but hardly singular use of the word "idiot" the tone of the message is far from insulting — and I assert on the whole quite extraordinarily reserved, considerate and instructive. Now that it has become the subject of controversy, I might actually wish to modify it slightly in the future, to make more of my long-held "idiotically angelic" perspective on things more plain — but I truly believe that this message in itself does not merit censure. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was inappropriate then, and it is inappropriate now. -- Cirt (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, not everyone is familiar with your unique use of language, and as experienced editors, it is our responsibility to communicate with those of less experience in as clear and respectful a fashion as possible. I appreciate the points of your "idiotically angelic" perspective, but surely it does more good to warn a vandal with language he is likely to understand. Think of a vandal's motives: do you think someone engaged in that type of activity is going to put any effort into understanding your point? If the person is a vandal, he won't read most of what you have written and will only take away from it that you stooped to his level by name-calling; if the person isn't a vandal, he'll feel confused. You are entitled to your perspective, and it isn't without interest, but Wikiquote, aside from your user page, isn't your platform for airing it. -Sketchmoose 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful input. Actually, I think at least a few of those targeted with that notice seemed to understand a few things about my bluntness quite well, and seemed to respect my candor far more than some people who have been administrators here have done. I never used the notice save after repeated incidents of vandalisms from one IP or such usernames with associated activity as made it obvious I was dealing with what I long ago termed a "pattern-vandal." I also have much harsher terms for various other kinds of idiots which I have never, as yet, publicly used — but it permits me to "vent" a bit — and laugh at myself and them without getting entrenched in such stupid bitterness and shallowness of perspective as prompts some to go on sprees of officially condemned or officiously sanctioned vandalism, much to the detriment of many worthy causes and many worthy people. I am actually often quite sincerely grateful for some of the irritations the stupidity of some people has caused me — especially when it prompts me to create new remedies to some forms of stupidity that I hadn't quite hit upon before. I hope that my current efforts with Chronolgy, Restorations, Worldsong and Vox Box can make some of my perspectives and motivations less mysterious and mystifying in many ways to others — and MORE mysterious and mystifying in some ways to those courageous minds who do not shrink back and shrivel in fear in the face of mysteries, and are eager to explore new avenues of many forms of awareness and potential. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philip Baird Shearer and page Targeted killing

edit

I previously blocked this user at Wikipedia for disruption of the page w:Targeted killing, reverting past 3RR, etc. The user apparently is now POV pushing here to this project as well, at the local page, Targeted killing. Would appreciate some additional admin eyes on this. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shearer's edit went too far because it left an introduction that did not actually identify the topic. I do think the original introduction was too essay-like, so I trimmed and revised it. I hope that is an acceptable middle ground – it's an editorial call. I don't think administrative action is called for unless there is active disruption here. Not having reviewed the situation at Wikipedia, I don't know how likely that is. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. That change looks great. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diff link = Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contributions) has now removed the entire contents of the External links sect, again. Please, can something be done about this user's disruptive behavior? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that this editorial disagreement began with multiple reverts. It now appears that discussion has been joined on the article talk page, where it may be hoped that consensus can be developed without need for administrative intervention. ~ Ningauble 21:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked = EdwardsBot

edit

Appears to be unapproved bot, operating locally on Wikiquote without permission or local community consensus. Other admins: Feel free to change it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Even though Wikiquote has never strictly required advance approval, the bot operator has not complied with the basic requirements for identification and communication. ~ Ningauble 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KamikazeBot (talk · contributions) = blocked. Another bot operating locally without permission or community consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Longfellow blocked as undeclared account of User:Quillercouch and User:Cato

edit

This account is blocked as an undeclared alternate account of User:Quillercouch and User:Cato. Given the deception displayed during the RFA on Wikisource now, I don't think that this person is ready to return as a productive force in Wikimedia communities. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might be that person. <sigh> It's a shame someone who is capable of very constructive contribution is too haunted by personal demons to be trusted. ~ Ningauble 14:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/017&oldid=3196657"