Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/018

Disruption by User:Kalki at page Julian Assange


Kalki is engaging in disruption at page Julian Assange, removing citation template formatting, and removing chronological order formatting of quotes, [1] and [2]. Would appreciate intervention from a previously uninvolved admin. Disruption by Kalki (talk · contributions) at this page on a living person is inappropriate and harmful to the prior stability of the page. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that this is once again a SEVERE and unwarranted mischaracterization of an editing dispute engaged in by Cirt. His previous edit removed recently added material, and I am currently engaged in what I believe is a remedial editing of the page, attempting to arrange it chronologically with all the previously included quotes, despite the DIFFICULTIES of doing so with all the extraneous dates and rather irrelevant formatting used in the cite templates that some people seem to prefer. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kalki removed citation template formatting from the page.
  2. Kalki disrupted page and broke the chronological order of the quotes.
  3. Kalki again removed citation templates and disrupted chronological order of quotes on the page - without waiting for outcome of ongoing talk page discussion.

-- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, which Cirt characterizes above as "disruptive" I arranged the quotations ABOUT Assange BY AUTHOR, which anyone who has spent more than rudimentary time here knows is STANDARD arrangement for such sections, and removed a citation formatting that is designed for long lists of footnote citations which I consider ridiculously inappropriate for interlinear citations, and contemptible to insist upon as if it were mandated here. I added a quotation by Newsweek journalist Ben Adler, in which he quoted entirely relevant comments about Assange by Sam Freedman and Dan Abrams — these clearly are notable and appropriate comments to include here. In my earlier edit today — which I am NOT going to pursue, at present, as engaging in an edit dispute with someone so dictatorially presumptuous as Cirt it is NOT the most worthy use of my time right now, I was restoring that quote and another recent addition by someone else, which I believe is an ENTIRELY appropriate quote from Assange's public blog. I am going on to less contentious issues in what remains of my time for today, and hope to get constructive edits done elsewhere — many of the imperious disruptions of Cirt are something I have learned to avoid contending with, so long as I am able. As I stated elsewhere, his activities and accusations of me being an "abuser" of alternate accounts here, after my editing dispute with him some months ago resulted not only in my long and what I consider entirely inappropriate blocking here, but also resulted in my being blocked indefinitely at Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia — which rather irritates me, but currently is not a bothersome enough outrage for me to seek to remedy, as yet. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to clarify — there are NO accusations of my "abuses" of multiple accounts that I am aware of elsewhere — save for some years ago where I was FALSELY associated with some vandals, because of some incidental, invalid and incorrect assumptions. The only genuine accounts of my own which I am accused of abusing are those here, and these accusations of "abuse" here — primarily because I have so many of them, seem to be the rationale in accusing me of being an abusive "sockpuppeteer" elsewhere. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not the way the bold-revert-discuss cycle is supposed to work. Since the two of you disagree, it is appropriate to invite community input on the editorial questions. The discussion has started on the wrong foot with an excess of mutual reverting, but I do not see that the wiki has been disrupted in a way that calls for administrative action at this time. "Disrupted the page" is an inappropriate way to characterize a bold edit. Disruption refers to interfering with the wiki process.

    I encourage both of you to confine your remarks to discussing the merits of the editorial choices, and to refrain from unnecessary and unproductive digressions. I am not going to comment on the editorial choices until tomorrow because I have other things to do now. ~ Ningauble 02:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 14 January 2011


The images and quote for Wikiquote:Quote of the day/January 14, 2011 will have to be placed on the page by an admin. I noticed yesterday that the rather erratic pre-date protections had prevented me from doing further work on the page — and went on to do some later dates. I believe that this is the best layout of the many alternatives which I had considered:

  To relate oneself in the spirit of reverence for life to the multiform manifestations of the will-to-live which together constitute the world is ethical mysticism. All profound world-view is mysticism, the essence of which is just this: that out of my unsophisticated and naïve existence in the world there comes, as a result of thought about self and the world, spiritual self-devotion to the mysterious infinite Will which is continuously manifested in the universe.

~ Albert Schweitzer ~


I will attempt to finish up work on the month of January sometime in the next week or so. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott 19:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

idea for plug in


it would be nice if there was a plug in that would allow me to access wikiquotes directly from my word processor without having to go online to search copy and paste. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011

Anyone care to take a look at my actions and offer an opinion as to whether or not I went too far? See the history of the page and User talk:Historyguy‎ for some background (and you'll see that this user continues his tirades). Thanks. ~ UDScott 20:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This actually appears to be a familiar editing pattern, and the editor seems to be a determined troll. There have been similar episodes of insistence upon adding rather minor and irrelevant details to intros of some articles on Russian figures in the past. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kalki. I thought it seemed familiar - I too seem to recall someone else trying to add such information to other pages. I tried to remain patient with this incarnation, but eventually I had had enough. ~ UDScott 21:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a familiar pattern of trolling, and terminology in some of the edit comments matches previous episodes. I endorse blocking due to disruption, gross incivility, and threats. IP blocks are not ordinarily made infinite unless they are open proxies, but I don't see it as a big problem.~ Ningauble 12:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page deleted after OTRS request


Hi all,

Notification that I deleted an old user talk (created in 2008) with one substantive edit (an greeting and deletion notice) after a request was made by OTRS ticket. Since this is technically outside of policy I'm giving a notice here. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpson's


I was just passing through and I noticed that your Simpson's page is missing a link for Season 1, Episode 4 "There's No Disgrace Like Home". Just a heads up. Sorry to waste your time.

QOTD 5 April 2011


It appears that the contents of Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/April 5, 2011 will have to be pasted into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 5, 2011 by an admin to permit the images used to be presented properly. All that currently appears on the page from my machine is a place holder with text. I sometimes encounter images that won't display properly at some sizes, and though this is often merely a temporary phenomenom, the situation has lasted in this case for 2 days and shows no signs of ending in the several browsers I have tested it with. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 11:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott 12:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request, #2


Portal (game) needs another dose of protection, as it's tending towards transcribing the whole game again. Will (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, an IP requested on my talk page that the long version of the article be protected. Rather than protect The Wrong Version, I am tempted to slap a {{copyvio}} template over the whole thing, as Jeff Q suggested years ago. ~ Ningauble 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a Wrong Version; the long version is verging on a complete transcript. I don't see what's so awesome about the quote "Weeeeeee". Will (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page semiprotect request

 Y Done. ~ Ningauble 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Jfdstfg (talk · contributions) Can someone block this guy? He's been vandalising the Copyright Cleanup Project Page and when I reverted it, turned attention to How I Met Your Mother and my userpages. Please block him. I think he's a sockpuppet of AussieLegend or somebody who was ticked off by AussieLegend. Thanks. --Eaglestorm 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 2011·04·22


The current montage at for QOTD 2011·04·22 wasn't entirely adjusted and balanced when I posted it prior to page protection. I believe that the work I did at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/April 22, 2011 is a signifcant improvement related to both Good Friday and the Nabokov QOTD, but it will have to be moved by an admin to Wikiquote:Quote of the day/April 22, 2011. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott 13:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal at work


The recent edtis of Peepsheem (talk · contributions) edits reveal the presence of new incarnation of a pattern vandal. Were I able to do so, I would already have blocked this wretched misuser and abuser of editorial tools, and I hope that someone does so before another cascade of detrimental activity occurs. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Blocked. This was cross-listed at WQ:VIP. ~ Ningauble 16:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalizing Benazir Bhutto article. Already blocked on, I've asked Commons to delete the (obviously fake) photos. Thanks, NawlinWiki 21:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (admin,[reply]

29 April QOTD


Will an admin please revert these sudden edits to the made to the QOTD layout just prior to page protection kicking in, made by a relative newcomer Thenub314 (talk · contributions) who has very little track record here beyond some category work last fall, comments on the village pump, and showing up recently to oppose my adminship nomination.

The quote of the day selected for that date is a very profound statement:

If all the parts of the universe are interchained in a certain measure, any one phenomenon will not be the effect of a single cause, but the resultant of causes infinitely numerous. ~ Henri Poincaré

Though there are some peculiar juxtapositions made in the layout I had devised, they relate to the theme of the quote, ideas of its author, and the events of the day. I selected the images to celebrate major social ceremonies and heroic engineering feats schedule for that day — the marriage of Prince William and Kate Middleton and the final launch of the space shuttle Endeavour, as well as a simple diagram of a Poincaré disk — in order to evoke many things about that day, and that profound statement about reality. The sudden paring down of this layout reveals little depth of thought, and much presumption of the right to making major edits to main page QOTD layouts with no actual prior participation in even the QOTD selection process, let alone the devising of arrangements to present them, and frankly a rather horrendously bare and unattractive layout retaining very little visual or intellectual interest. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert, I will take no offense. It is unfortunate the page protection kicked in before Kalki had a chance to improve upon my work (or revert it entirely if that is what he wanted). I was simply attempting to be bold when it came to remarks made by Ningauble and UDScott and myself in the village pump (that were in response to an earlier complaint). This is not the first time taking part in the quote of the day (see February 5th), but Kalki is correct I am fairly new at this. I will leave it to other people from now on so I do not create such a fuss. Thenub314 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted without opposition. BD2412 T 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank both Thenub314 for his comments, and BD2412 for his responses. I recognize that there can be room for debate on many aspects of arrangement of presentations, and am not hostile to sincere criticisms — but certainly feel all people should be free to make responses and remarks bound to sincerity and candor, and not neccessarily to rather shallow perceptions of what is civil or nice. I generally hold honest candor in disagreements far more truly civil than deference based on constrained timidity or conformity. I believe that so long as proper respect for persons and processes is not confused with impositions born of ignorance or neglect of principles genuine human progress can occur in many fields of dispute. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from


IP address has been vandalizing several pages over the past two days and two of the pages had not even been spotted for as long as two days, so this has gone under the radar. An email (2011042810018115) was received complaining of this, which is why I post this. Adrignola 16:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am rolling Portal 2 and Portal (game) back to the last version by a trusted registered user, and semi-protecting them due to protracted edit warring by IPs and single-use accounts. ~ Ningauble 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Recent SPAM link destinations added to pages by ENorsk (talk · contributions), Crewman (talk · contributions) and others by Ccm001 (talk · contributions) should probably be put on the link blacklist to prevent further occurrences of such vandalism. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link has been globally blacklisted, so local blacklisting should not be necessary. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that information. I believe that there has been a notable increase in spam activity in recent weeks, but there seems to be a clear concentration of it in recent days, and Graphiczen1 (talk · contributions) has engaged in spamming to links which should probably also be blacklisted. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]



User:Ghhgjjf seems to be vandalizing talk pages, and some main space pages. Thenub314 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user repeated the same parttern of vandalism after being warned, so I blocked the account. ~ Ningauble 14:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 RR


User:Kalki has been consistently adding images unrelated to Doctor Who to Eleventh Doctor. Several of us have tried to remove them but s/he keeps putting them back. Please see [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], [9]. I am at (or past) 3RR, so I have to stop. Please don't block me if I went over, I am stopping now. I tried to compromise and discuss and still no luck. I leave to you admins to sort out. —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) . —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .

I have been consistently restoring images that have been on the heavily edited pages for many months and which had only a few complaints on a few occasions, most, if not all of which seem to have likely to have been complaints and removals by the same individual, as indicated by some of the related comments in editing boxes and talk pages at various times, and by openly associated IPs. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IP's involved are different individuals, at least two. Geolocate: different parts of the world. Do ISP's do the look like open proxies? Even a duck test suggests there are multiple people involved. Most of the edits to that page come from IP's, we deserve a say too. He is being abusive. Period.—This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) . —This unsigned comment is by (talkcontribs) .
I am simply stating factual observations, which make indications of the two IPs now presently and openly associated being so, and in past edits similar and related commentary being evident. If my inference that this individual was probably the same individual who started this dispute in recent days is wrong, the earliest of recent edits being by and IP which seems by editing styles and comments to match previous comments and edits in the past, it was hardly presented as an absolute or abusive inference. I am quite acceptive of IPs having a say in matters here, but so does skepticism, and I was simply indicating some of mine about some appearances and comments which seem to be asserting "Several of us have tried to remove" the images — which can only be a valid assertion if made with an acquaintance of previous occurrences with a person who made similar edits, with similar and apparently relational commentary, as I believe that only 2 not clearly associated IPs have actually edited in similar manner towards similar ends in this latest incident. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion in User space


Common sense seems to indicate that User talk: should be deleted because (1) it has zero relevance to Wikiquote and (2) you don't get a user page unless you register a user account. However, situations like this are not covered by the criteria for speedy deletion. What is an administrator to do with content that is "merely" extraneous?

There are actually a large number of user pages that do not appear to "facilitate communication among participants", including registered accounts that have been used solely for creating such pages. Should we consider revising Wikiquote:User page to be a little less broadly inclusive (I mean only a little) and adding some sort of deletion criterion covering the more inappropriate uses? ~ Ningauble 19:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to broaden any mandates at this time. I placed the SPEEDY DELETE tag on it because it was a post to an anon IP by another anon IP — who posted pretty much of the same thing to the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Kalki page. Were such info on a registered user page, placed there by the user, and with no clear violation of established policies, I would not be so presumptive as to remove it — but as these posts were to an anon IP's page and a voting page with no clear relevance, I believe it appropriate to remove them. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 19:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it seems appropriate to remove this, but we don't have a clear policy mandate for administrative intervention in such cases of irrelevant crosstalk.

In thinking about framing what this case is about, a somewhat broader characterization came to mind, i.e., forms of personal expression having no apparent relevance to fulfilling or facilitating Wikiquote's purposes posted by persons who do not otherwise participate in the project. This is broader than the case in point, but it also seems like common sense to me that things like fan testimonials , daily tweets, bloggery or blog promotion, publication of one's poetry and other self quotation, résumés, etc., etc., have no place here when it is the user's sole activity on Wikiquote.

Thinking about whether to act on the case in point without clear policy led me to wonder what other administrators think about acting on this broader class. Should they be deleted using a broad interpretation of WQ:NOT, or taken to individual WQ:VFD discussions because they are not covered by WQ:CSD? Should they be ignored if they are not expressly proscribed? Should we consider adding something to the deletion criteria for such cases, or a narrower class covering the case in point? Or should we just leave well enough alone, if it is well enough, because "bad cases make bad law"? ~ Ningauble 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA for exposed sockmaster who refuses to self-disclose all sock accounts and stop socking ???

  1. Is this really happening? Are we really having an RFA continue for over one month without significant support for promotion, for a user who has been exposed as a sockmaster with literally over two hundred socks ???
  2. Please note, that Kalki (talk · contributions) has refused to self-disclose all of his socking.
  3. He most recently was exposed as maintaining an additional twelve, yes, (12), sock accounts. He did not reveal or confirm these publicly as socks, until after the sock accounts were exposed as socks of the sockmaster account Kalki, and blocked. Here are the diffs: Alpha, Abraxas, Elven Angel, The Keeper, Nomen, Shanti, Sat, Sun Horse, Tao Jones, Uroborus, Wyrm, Herla.
  4. This is an extremely inappropriate candidacy for adminship.
  5. Kalki as an RFA candidate should not be given any special privileges, and should not have an RFA that proceeds for longer than the set period of time, which is normally seven days. This RFA has gone on for more than one month.
  6. This RFA should be closed at this time as unsuccessful, and something should be done about Kalki's refusal to stop maintaining hundreds of sock accounts.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contentions which have existed between me and Cirt, and forms of contempt indicated for each other's behavior and opinions on many matters, are quite familiar to most of you. I truly have always wished to serve this project, and have never done anything to deliberately harm it or abuse whatever powers I have had. I will only state here that much of the material on my account pages which I contend Cirt has maliciously defaced is preserved for scrutiny at Restorations, and further commentary on this matter from some of my perspectives can also be found at the Village pump, and in the permanent archives among my user pages: 2011 Contentions ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 10:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, I'm not sure what the point of this post is. From looking at the RFA, it is clear that Kalki will not be restored to adminship. You have already expressed your opinion about Kalki's behaviour there. You could have just approached any bureacrat on the project and asked them to close the discussion - the outcome is in no doubt and there's no reason to believe that any additional amount of time will change things. Also, there is no rule preventing Kalki, or anyone else, from seeking adminship on the basis of undisclosed alternate accounts (I will refrain from calling them sockpuppets absent evidence of their being use for vote-rigging or something similarly nefarious). If you think such a rule should be implemented, I'll support you in that endeavor, but this comes across to me as spiteful. BD2412 T 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, BD2412 (talk · contributions), I should have simply contacted a bureaucrat. I apologize about that. I am sorry. -- Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for coming late, I basically agree with BD2412 here and thank UDScott to close it based on consensus. I'd like to go beyond this particular issue: why not allow sysops to close a RFA, specially it meets rejection from the community? Obviously only b'crats can close a RFA successfully, but there is no technical hazard for sysops to close unsuccessful RFA, and I don't see any moral difficulties either. Thoughts? --Aphaia 10:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually closed a few failed applications myself in 2009, and a withdrawn application earlier this year. It seems noncontroversial. ~ Ningauble 14:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is especially useful in snowball cases, where relatively new contributors seek privileges too early. It is better for everyone that such processes be closed before too many rejections pile on. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but only in clear cases. -- Cirt (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quitting checkuser flag


I am resigning as English Wikiquote checkuser as my life is getting so busy and I am already an administrator on 12 wikis. I recently resigned as the last Chinese Wikisource bureaucrat after the other bureaucrat was removed for long inactivity, to show that no wiki deserve single bureaucrat. Yet some bureaucrats on smaller wikis would refuse to resign, thus impeding stewards' work.--Jusjih 12:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser flags removed. This wiki has now 2 CheckUsers, which is the minimum per policy. --Dferg (steward) 12:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jusjih, for all the work you did.
Note that one of the remaining checkusers, EVula, has not been active at this project since last December. ~ Ningauble 15:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I echo the thanks of Ningauble. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else is interested in doing the job, I'll apply for the CheckUser flag. Obviously, I'm around a lot these days. Is the position limited to 'crats? If so, I'll be glad to go through that process first. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The position is open to any admin, not just crats. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]