Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/020



Anyone else feel that Absurdism is quickly getting out of hand? I've tried twice to ask Kalki about what criteria is being used for selection for the page (see User_talk:Kalki#Absurdism), but I'm still no closer to an answer (it appears to me that whatever criteria are being used they are the result of a logical fallacy). I just worry that this page will become so bloated as to become something beyond the bounds of the original theme. And it seems to me that it is becoming a personal essay of sorts about the topic, choosing quotes for inclusion based on Kalki's personal view of the world rather than an objective selection that is tied to the topic in a more obvious way. I also worry that this will set a precedent for anyone else who wants to cherry pick quotes to fit a theme of their choosing that do not really fit. Anyone care to comment on Kalki's talk page in the conversation I started? ~ UDScott 20:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a brief comment that I was already drafting when you posted this question. I am not sure this editorial question is an Administrators' issue a this point, so the Village Pump may be a better venue for requesting comment. ~ Ningauble 21:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I'll post it there too. ~ UDScott 21:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Left a comment about this at the Village Pump thread, Wikiquote:Village_pump#Absurdism. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption and incivility by Kalki


There is a discussion raised by Michaeldsuarez (talk · contributions) about inappropriate image use by Kalki. I removed the images as part of the discussion at Village Pump.

  1. Disruption: Kalki (talk · contributions) has refused to wait for discussion at Village Pump, instead choosing to disruptively violate consensus and revert the inappropriate images back to the pages. Here are the six diffs: diff diff diff diff diff diff. Note: I removed the images myself a 2nd time, but I won't do so again, pending discussion at Village Pump, and I made a statement to that impact there: my comment.
  2. Incivility: Kalki has used inappropriate language and incivility directed at another user, instead of polite and civil discussion (recent example: "YOU IMMEDIATELY JUMP ON A CHANCE TO REMOVE INFORMATION and label that "CONSENSUS" — I label it BULLSHIT.") Note the use of CAPS, and bolding in that thread at Village Pump, etc.
  3. Prior warnings: Note that one thread up on the very same page at Village Pump, Kalki has been warned for his inappropriate rhetoric. Admin BD2412 stated: "regarding the section title above, that jumping the gun on the deletion of an article that is at best questionable in terms of the motivations of its author is hardly an example of "authoritarian misbehavior". We should strive to avoid needlessly inflammatory rhetoric." And admin Ningauble said: "I agree with deprecating the rhetoric here."
  • At this point in time, Kalki's participation is no longer constructive. Indeed, it is only disruptive and incivil in nature. Kalki has shown he refuses to participate constructively without disruption, and in a civil manner.
  • A block is in order here on the Kalki account.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if people are so cowardly and obtuse as to accept this load of crap as anything other than a load of malevolent crap, someone might actually block me temporarily — but once again, Cirt actually saw NO NEED of ANY form of CONSENSUS to develop before REMOVING images that had been on WELL USED PAGES for MONTHS or YEARS, at the rather obtuse objections of ONE person who has NOT EDITED IN YEARS who provided him an opportunity to have a ruse to begin attacking my considerable work here. I RESTORED these pages to their LONG EXISTING CONDITION, and it is Cirt who is being quite SMUGLY disruptive. There are no words for the censure this contemptible person deserves, and so I will simply say I FORGIVE him or her his or her STUPIDITY — and even his or her will to do EVIL and SLANDER others — but I cannot PARDON him or her from BEING someone I consider truly DESPICABLE. ONLY they themselves, can do that, through a bit of self-examination which seems something the most VILE slanderers are MOST fearful of actually doing, or having any one else do. I stand by my actions and my sentiments as truly moral and ethical, and my passions as well. ~ Kalki·· 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
This project has over 20,000 pages now. I would think that there's ample opportunity for the two of you to contribute without running into each other. If you can't figure out how to get along, I really wish you would just try to avoid interacting. That said, Kalki, you need to tone down your rhetoric. You can't go around calling people authoritarian or accuse them of having a will to do evil over content disputes. That goes beyond the constraints of a civil community. You are too easily provoked into excessive responses like the one above. Don't be, and others won't provoke you. BD2412 T 19:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: A third-party user raised an issue with Kalki's inappropriate image use at Village Pump. I commented there. I then removed the inappropriate images. Kalki reverted, and responded with incivil rhetoric. Let's see the forest for the trees here. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding complaint #1, my observation as events unfolded is that it was Cirt who began acting without waiting for discussion to reach consensus, by removing images minutes after the discussion was initiated. The complaint itself is internally inconsistent in that failing to wait for discussion to reach consensus and violating the consensus reached in discussion are mutually exclusive characterizations of the events. It is my opinion that the discussion had not, and has not yet, reached a consensus; and that Cirt's removal of images might fairly be characterized as contentious editing.

Nothing in this remark is intended to excuse or justify any subsequent edit warring by either party. ~ Ningauble 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ningauble: Two (2) users commenting at Village Pump found the image use by Kalki inappropriate. I removed the images. No other party commented at Village Pump. Your assessment is inaccurate. -- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In point of fact, less than 30 minutes had elapsed from when the issue was raised (21:0121:29, UTC), and only three people had expressed opinions on the question in that interval. In my opinion, administrators should display a greater appreciation of what does and does not constitute an established consensus. Of course, if you were unaware that the matter might still be considered open for discussion then "contentious editing" might not be the most apt description. ~ Ningauble 21:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. – It is unsurprising that there has been little comment yet about the image policy, or lack thereof, given the amount of distraction that predictably arises from poking Kalki.) ~ Ningauble 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ninguable, it was Kalki who reverted against existing consensus at that time, and Kalki who used inappropriate rhetoric. -- Cirt (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically referring to item #1, which has nothing to do with Kalki's rhetoric but, rather, has to do with failing to wait for discussion to establish a consensus. You cannot have it both ways: if Kalki failed to wait for discussion as you say, then you also failed by acting first. It takes more than two comments to establish consensus to change something that has had longstanding tacit acceptance. ~ Ningauble 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, Ningauble, that consensus is against Kalki, and still is. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding complaint #2, I agree with BD2412's remarks. I have said on several occasions that this sort of histrionics is counterproductive and disruptive. ~ Ningauble 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ningauble: I agree. And yet Kalki continues the inappropriate behavior. With zero repercussions for Kalki. What we are to learn from this is that this sort of histrionics is counterproductive and disruptive, and yet at the same time acceptable and tolerated. That seems quite odd. -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding complaint #3, I do not believe it is quite accurate to characterize the quoted remarks as "warnings". Speaking of my own words, it was not my intention to express or imply a threat of consequences. ~ Ningauble 20:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninguable: Understood, my apologies about that characterization. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Additional inappropriate rhetoric by Kalki


After above issues raised, Kalki has continued inappropriate rhetoric:

  1. "For some time now I have thought of Cirt as little more than a pathetically DEVIOIUS empowered TROLL-VANDAL and someone who DELIGHTS in the harm they can do to MANY"
  2. "revert OBVIOUSLY malicious TROLLING and VANDALIMS done with presumptively SLANDEROUS explanations"
  3. "restore entirely appropriate use of a shadow to rebuke the foul shams perpetrated by Cirt"

Are there zero repercussions for this behavior by Kalki? Can others see from this model that there are no problems with also behaving like this? Would there be nothing wrong if I also started to use this sort of rhetoric? -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that Kalki's rhetoric has gone over the top and has devolved into a string of personal attacks. These are content disputes, not a basis for making these kinds of attacks. I also think that where these comments are made in edit summaries, they represent an inappropriate use of that function, since they go far beyond describing the actual changes made to the pages in question. At this point, I would endorse blocking Kalki for a cooling off period of a day or two. BD2412 T 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I truly wish things had gone otherwise — but I believe the time HAS come for repercussions for the OBVIOUSLY malicious TROLLING and VANDALISM of Cirt, which has gone on quite long enough with impunity. I am going to OFFICIALLY request that he or she be DESYSOPED — I have NEVER done such a thing before, and I am no longer familiar with many of the procedures involved, but I believe that he or she is continually little more than a disruptive and malevolent presence here — and truly hope that one day this person will be more responsible and less hostile to the GOOD which dwells in ALL people — even those who are extremely misguided and deluded. ~ Kalki·· 20:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, such a threat by Kalki appears to be retaliation in nature, especially made directly after a third-party admin (BD2412) has suggested that a block is in order for Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to acknowledge that a few people have objected to the passion of my rhetoric in the past few days and of the past few years at times — but I believe I have NEVER done ANYTHING which is immoral or actually violates the mandates of this or any other wikimedia project, though it sometimes oppresses the expectations or sensibilities of some. I implore people to further examine the circumstances in which I have spoken — and to ALWAYS be PREPARED to LEARN more from others, rather than to suppress and remove information, or seek to remove their right to effectively SPEAK in public forums of some significance. ~ Kalki·· 20:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, Wikiquote:No personal attacks is policy here. Accusing others of trolling or malevolance is pretty clearly a personal attack. BD2412 T 20:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ACTUALLY, Cirt my response was something I composed IMMEDIATELY after your first comments — but there was an edit conflict, as there was in my last post because of your last comments. I am NOT calling upon you to be blocked or prevented from editing — but I truly believe a DESYSOPING of you is ENTIRELY appropriate, whether others can reach consensus to block me or not, and is NOT "retaliation" but simply weariness of having to put up with your regularly use of Admin privileges and prestige to more effectively intimidate and slander others. I have stated in the past that of ALL the admins I personally have encountered on ALL the wikimedia projects you are the person LEAST worthy of having such tools or prestige available to them. ~ Kalki·· 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
Proposing to desysop Cirt is rather pointless, at best. Looking over Cirt's contribution history, there is a substantial body of good edits (particularly the rescue of Jean-Luc Picard, and his work on My Life in Orange and the Campaign for "santorum" neologism page) and productive, appropriate use of the admin tools. On the other hand, I note that Cirt has not blocked you, but has instead sought consensus of the community on this matter, which is an entirely responsible way to go about addressing the issues he raises. BD2412 T 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BD2412, I appreciate that, very much. Indeed, I hope another third-party admin will take action here with regards to Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I continuously am responding to previous remarks now—  "Accusing others of trolling or malevolance is pretty clearly a personal attack" — I assert that saying such accusations are an "unacceptable attack" IF SINCERE is rather absurd, for that would mean that the implications of your statement are clearly an unacceptable "personal attack" — but I reject such specious logic and see no need to forgive you for sincerity, and hope you can see there is no need for me to beg anyone for expressing mine. I have said before that I am an Absurdist — which makes it very easy for me to FORGIVE errors and ACCEPT fair will in others — but what I sometimes do with vehement passion is attack forms of foul and life diminishing error. I truly believe that I am attacking hypocrisy and foul absurdities with acknowledgement and some assertions of fair and beautiful absurdities which most people are too shallow or narrow minded to regularly perceive. ~ Kalki·· 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kalki, that's not enough. The inappropriate use of the edit summary space for attacks must stop. The incivility and baseless accusations of "trolling", "vandalisms", calling another user a "troll" and a "vandal", must stop. -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had been inclined to post this (and once again had an edit conflict)— but the above aggression makes me pause — but I will post it all the same with the remark that "use of the edit summary space for attacks must stop" quite rightly applies to calling quotes of a major UN functionary and links to UN sites SPAM. THUS, I will withdraw my request for desysoping of Cirt at this time. I will concede it was made in ANGER and frustration, but certainly was NOT in mere "retaliation" for past actions. I believe that if one looks at things from the broadest perspectives most people would agree with me, but don't wish to push anyone to such limits at this time. ~ Kalki·· 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Unfortunately this still doesn't address the issue of Kalki's inappropriate rhetoric. There is nothing to say that he won't do this again in the near future. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OF COURSE, I am maintaining that there is a need for HONESTY rather than hypocrisy — and I am quite aware that many people are inclined to pander to people's desire for appearance of security and calm and peace rather than have core issues honestly addressed which might resolve MANY of the actual causes of conflict and hostility in genuinely fair ways. I will concede that I am a person very prone to passionate and sincere rhetoric rather than disimulating hypocrisy and feigned geniality, and I am quite aware many people are often prone to find that offensive, frightening and even dangerous, especially those who regularly feel severely threatened by those most willing to be honest. I will try to diminish the severity of some of my rhetoric, but I certainly will NOT make any promises to suppress my inclination to honest and sincere assertions forever. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ Kalki·· 00:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks + PS : I truly will try to refrain from commenting very passionately on these issues for at least few days, but again, I make no promises that I will do so entirely. ~ Kalki·· 00:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Kalki has neglected to redact or cross out with <s></s> any of his inappropriate comments and inflammatory rhetoric. In fact, the he has continually added to it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely have NO inclinations to cross out sincere comments I continue to believe to be probably true and certainly justified and valid from my perspectives. I accept that in some ways I might be wrong or excessive, and I accept that you might not be able to perceive or appreciate many forms of the reason, logic or expressions I have used, but I have NOT attempted to FORBID you in engaging in YOUR forms of rhetoric and expression — nor even to constrain you from them at all, save where that consists of automatically deleting anything you do not agree with, wish to have considered or KNOWN by anyone, or BLOCKING someone who dares to engage in a dispute with you — as you HAVE already DONE with ME in the past. SINCERE BLESSINGS TO YOU with HONEST AFFIRMATION of your worth as a UNIQUE human being who I am sincerely attempting to better understand and appreciate. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ Kalki·· 01:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
From Kalki's statement: "I sincerely have NO inclinations to cross out sincere comments I continue to believe to be probably true and certainly justified and valid from my perspectives." — unfortunately it appears this inappropriate behavior will continue to go on, as he repeatedly says he has done nothing wrong. -- Cirt (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated ELSEWHERE, where you have persisted in attempting to find allies in your apparent will to diminish some of my freedoms or otherwise punish me for persisting in HONESTLY disagreeing with you, "I truly hope that you will grow more enlightened to the grace within other people and not continue to project ASSUMPTIONS of DARKNESS and extreme malice or ill will where it actually does NOT exist." Blessings to you — may the day soon come when you recognize me as an HONEST friend. ~ Kalki·· 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear comments from admins and not Kalki on whether Kalki's rhetoric and refusal to redact inappropriate attacks constitutes need for repercussions for Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would like to hear comments from others and not Cirt on me and Cirt and whether my rhetoric is inappropriate, and Cirt's continued rhetoric and apparent will to find someone as an ally in suppressing, erasing, or deprecating information, or threatening people with punishments if they do not RETRACT or disavow their HONEST opinions is appropriate behavior for a fair and just human being. Blessings to all with Truth and Grace for all who are wise — and even absurd fools like me. ~ Kalki·· 04:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
    • I actually WILL state I possibly HAVE made some errors in some of my previous statements, and I believe there CERTAINLY must be deficiencies of MANY types in nearly ALL of them. I know that such is characteristic of nearly ANY statement a human being CAN make, thus I will not burden anyone with too many details, but this is something I am willing to concede — but I do NOT consider an insistence or expectation or demand of others to retract any particular statements they had sincerely expressed is appropriate behavior for ANYONE. Blessings to All. ~ Kalki·· 04:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I see that Kalki will continue to respond here until he has The Last Word, so be it. Hopefully there will be repercussions for Kalki so Kalki will learn not to repeat such inappropriate behavior, rhetoric, and attacks in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing violations by Kalki

  1. User talk:11614soup = diff
  2. User talk:Oracleofottawa = diff
  3. User talk:Collingwood = diff
  4. User talk:Mariomassone = diff

This is not acceptable behavior in the middle of an ongoing Village Pump discussion where consensus is against Kalki. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to cite a discussion that has JUST BEGUN, as if a consensus of involved participants in this project had been developed, and it has NOT. Also, the rules you are attempting to cite as something I have violated are Wikipedia rules, NOT Wikiquote rules. Similar policies and guidelines here might be appropriate to develop for this WIki — but have never actually been established because there are so few people involved here regularly that development of formal procedures has never been a top priority for MOST of US — and I for one have always promoted a respect for PRESERVING informalities of procedures, so much as possible, and promoting far more free and informal relations. Even emulation of those policies developed at Wikipedia in relation to its VAST community are such as I do not believe I have disrespected so grievously as Cirt would like to portray me as having done. They state: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."
I approached four people — ONE, whom I had strong reason to believe agreed with me on the issue, and 3 others whose specific views are at this point STILL not known to me or anyone else, and who I approached because they were very active in recent weeks and two of them had been involved in recent community discussions, and I believed they might have worthy opinions on this one.
Though I have made no actual searches for evidence of this, I confess that I am genuinely suspicious that general complaints and cross-wiki slanders which I believe Cirt is strongly inclined to make of me might possibly be involved in the sudden surge of interest and involvement against me on this matter here, even if he or she did not actually canvas anyone for this particular issue, but whether that is the case or not, I am not making accusations that he or she DID such a thing — only that I remain very suspicious of MANY of his or her motives, and continue to maintain that he or she has engaged in what I consider extensive and vicious slander campaigns against me in a cross-wiki manner for years.
I repeat that I bear Cirt no particular animosity, and do not know very much about him or her — but I do strongly disagree with MANY of this person's assertions and claims and have made clear that people should have no qualms here against stating their genuine opinions on matters, and NOT feel obligated or be coerced to agree with those that I or anyone else might be prone to agree with or support.
Though I have long refrained from explicating MANY of my own views over my 8 years of work here, to allow greater awareness and appreciation of my particular forms of perspectives to develop in anyone interested in understanding my views, I have recently begun to openly declare myself an Absurdist — something I could arguably be said to have been since my very early childhood. I have GREAT respect for MOST human perspectives, but embrace ABSOLUTE subservience to NONE — and I do NOT promote any political or religious ideologies which WOULD promote any form of absolute subservience of anyone to anyone else. Although I can usually accept MANY of other people's beliefs or strategies as perfectly valid and acceptable for them, I usually discern great problems and innate EVIL in seeking to make any such ways MANDATORY for others. In the spirit of forgiveness and tolerance and promotion of diversity and Justice, Unity, Liberty, and Love of Truth and Grace, I wish everyone greater blessings in their lives, through the growth of Wisdom among us all. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ Kalki·· 15:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
Two points regarding this complaint:
  1. Wikipedia's WP:CANVASS is not policy here at Wikiquote. I think it is unnecessary because this community is several orders of magnitude smaller. Broadening general participation at our Village Pump is a Good Thing™ because it usually has too few voices to assess or formulate broad community consensus.
  2. As I remarked yesterday in an earlier thread on this page, it is completely inconsistent to say that discussion is ongoing and that consensus has been reached at the same time. Please be patient.
~ Ningauble 18:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. So it would be alright for me to go ahead and also post to four (4) users asking them to come to that discussion at Village Pump?
  2. I did not say consensus "reached", but did mention that Kalki chose to take action, canvassing, after he saw existing consensus at the time was 3:1 against him. -- Cirt (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with posting on a small number of user talk pages to inform those editors of an ongoing discussion, unless the editors themselves object to it. I would object if such posting was done to a large number of pages (let's say a dozen or more) without a reasonable basis for believing that the editors contacted had a reason to be interested in the discussion. WP:CANVASS allows this also. I agree with Ningauble that bringing more voices to our discussions is a good thing. As for the consensus issue, I think Ningauble's point is that there is no such thing as "existing consensus" until consensus has been "reached". BD2412 T 19:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess in the future I will also feel free to post to multiple user talkpages in the midst of an ongoing discussion as Kalki has done. -- Cirt (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help please, what can be done about ongoing inappropriate rhetoric by Kalki ?


Please, help me, advise me, what can be done about Kalki's continued inappropriate rhetoric on this project directed against other users??? -- Cirt (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that Kalki is referring to the Nazis as having been authoritarian autocrats, and is saying that it is unfortunate that the Nazis brought this negative connotation to the previously benign swastika. However, Kalki also seems to be suggesting that our imposition of policies designed to forward the presentation of quotes on this project is similarly authoritarian. If there is no objection (other than Kalki's own inevitable objection) within the next few hours, I'm going to block Kalki for 48 hours so that he can reflect on the difference between authoritarianism in Nazi Germany and the establishment of policies on one of the millions of websites available for the posting of these sorts of collections of images and ideas, and the civility incumbent in avoiding such comparisons. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OF COURSE I must assert my "inevitable objection" and HOPE that OTHERS will as well. IF my rhetoric is in ANY ways disturbing to ANYONE, if it is in anyway FALSE, or considered FLAWED — such deficiencies should be POINTED out in REASONABLE arguments and debates — and NOT my own or ANYONE else's RIGHT to engage in rhetoric SUPPRESSED, deprecated and taken away for ANY amount of time by COERCION. I assert that TRUE and genuine CIVILITY promotes FREEDOM of SPEECH and NOT suppression of speech — and if ANY criticisms of evident BEHAVIOR, or ATTITUDES is to be taken as a "PERSONAL ATTACK" then what is left to be "Free" about but MUTE DOCILE CONFORMITY? Please note the taking away of the right to speak is FAR more a personal attack on people, than harshly criticizing their actions and attitudes are — no matter WHAT rhetoric or comparisons might be used. It may be a pain to others for me to quote Thomas Paine, but I believe it is my proper RIGHT to do so: "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." ~ ~ Kalki·· 18:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked Kalki for 48 hours for his continued uncivil references to other editors. I hope this time will allow Kalki to reflect on the value of addressing the issues at hand without commenting on the personalities involved. BD2412 T 22:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse BD2412's action. I hope all of us both Kalki and the rest of the community makes these hours a good occasion of retreat and reflect on the value of constructive dialogue. There should be difference between healthy criticism and hostile personal attack. --Aphaia 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are having so many problems out of Kalki why don't you just put a block on the account and IP adress?-David L Green 18:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely what was done. The problem seems to be that I am what some might want to label a "pathological" Truth-teller — and when I speak I nearly always aim to reveal what I feel can be useful and instructive to others, even if it is NOT always easily understood or welcomed by those more accustomed to abject obedience and fearful timidity. I truly am devoted to this project still, in many earnest ways, but I have ALL my life been FAR more devoted to Justice, such Unity as can ONLY be arrived at by COMMON UNDERSTANDINGS of Truth, Liberty, and Love of Truth by which understandings can develop. I hope that those principles have not become things so alien and strange here that they will actually consider further blocking of someone who, I believe, has still put FAR More WORK into this project than anyone else here, and has always sought to WORK and HELP others do as they will — NOT seek to force them to do as I would wish save through the influence of the forces of Truth, Good Humor, and Reason. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ Kalki·· 19:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
I'm actually a bit offended that you would say that you have "put FAR More WORK into this project than anyone else here". It just so happens that I've made about 4,000 more article space edits than you (although I grant that you have made more edits in other spaces), and in the course of so doing I have imported the entire corpus of several public domain dictionaries of quotations, and have helped to craft and implement a number of important policies. Your work here is appreciated, but none of us is indispensable. BD2412 T 21:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually am sorry that I offended you, and did not mean to belittle any of the other MAJOR contributors here at all, and I acknowledge you as one of them — many also are no longer around much anymore, but there are MANY who I know are MUCH under-appreciated. I had not checked up on counts just lately, having had much of my capacities for involvement diminished in recent years. I will perhaps attempt to provide far more thorough accounting of what has gone on in the past with myself and others some time this year — and by the end of the year I expect I will have dropped MANY masks, both here and elsewhere, so others can more thoroughly assess my contributions in MANY areas to many projects, and more properly perceive my actual motives and aims, which I believe have been much maligned and distorted by at least a few people — and I believe many will be quite surprised at the full extent of my efforts to do volunteer work in ANONYMOUS and pseudonymous manners, and though I expect my revelations will allow me to be exonnerated from a few foul suspicions and accusations, there will ALWAYS be things I hold back from claiming much credit for. I also believe many will be suprised to the failures errors and tragedies I will confess to being sorrowed at, even when I cannot regret acting as I truly believed to be for the best. I am almost always ready to acknowledge my perceptions may be deficient or even flawed in significant ways, as this is a circumstance for any human being, but I also would assert they are quite often not quite so deficient nor so much in error in some ways as some people might be inclined to believe or assume. BLESSINGS TO ALL. ~ Kalki·· 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had to rush off briefly after I typed in the above, and am just now back — I would also like to note that I was being a bit reactive to the implications made that I was someone who is merely a "troublemaker" — and in my defense I would like to assert I have done FAR more than most of my most vociferous and constant critics and accusers — but I believe MOST of us are usually are doing what we sincerely believe to be beneficial to those things which matters most — though we obviously have varied ideas on what those are. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]

About Ktommy


He continues to harrass me with his demands for an apology, even though he and this IP user (which is most likely a sockpuppet):, have caused nothing but edit wars, and he even personally attacked another user in this edit summary. Every time I remove his messages from my talk page, he keeps undoing my edit with a rude edit summary. I request that something be done about it. WikiLubber 02:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for raising it up. As for "", it rather looks to me just an accidental signing off, not a deliberate sockpupetting, but I could be wrong. On this issue I agree with Ningauble in his word to Ktommy "If he (=WikiLubber) doesn't want to talk to you then the best course I can recommend is to leave him alone." It would be wise for him to leave you alone. On the other hand, I'd ask you, WikiLubber, to consider just leaving his message on your talk without answering. Leaving his messages on your talk doesn't necessarily mean you've accepted his argument. Cleaning up your talk page is of course in your capacity, though.
As for the edit summary, such incivility is not acceptable. I sympathize with you on this incivility even if it was not intended to yourself; it is annoying to have such a disruptive comment on talk history. I'm about to hide the edit summary in question; other admins are welcome to review it and if they think my action overreacts, they should retain the right to revert it. Cheers, --Aphaia 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Traudl Junge


I am about to leave for perhaps a few hours, but in the next day or so, would like to do some work on sourcing and developing the once existing Traudl Junge page which was deleted during what I consider one of the spates of overzealous cleanup in the past. If an admin would undelete that and its talk page in the next few days, I will attempt to do sourcing and expansion of the article. Blessings to all. ~ Kalki·· 20:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the subject for a bit, I agree that this should be restored and supplied with sourced quotes. The book, Until the Final Hour contains a number of quotable pieces. I will restore the page on Tuesday. BD2412 T 00:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Traudl Junge has been restored, as requested. BD2412 T 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MUCH — I won't have much time to work on it right now, but should be able to get back to it later today. ~ Kalki·· 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice re discussion on Image use policy


Please see Wikiquote_talk:Image_use_policy#Proposed:_BD2412_suggested_criteria. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Checkuser on Heecf


Likely a sock of Bubbaloo (talk · contributions). Need checkuser to block other sleeper socks and IPs. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted to Meta to try and get help. -- Cirt (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if they are identical: Bubbaloo edits are too old to run a check on. While there is no other accounts on the underlying IP address of Heecf, a same ISP was used by another vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Details are posting to checkuser-l for further reviews. Cheers, --Aphaia 07:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Aphaia, I didn't receive those details on checkuser-l. Perhaps you could check if you used the right email address? Trijnstel 17:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and please see this additional request of Cirt too and perform a CheckUser here. Thanks! Trijnstel 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you didn't since I haven't posted yet :) --Aphaia 09:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Checkuser requests


Each of these users posted identical spam to their talk pages. ~ UDScott 02:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as socks; those accounts below are socks as well:

--Aphaia 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the   Confirmed, socks now blocked. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



I was trying to revert vandalism by (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log) but he was vandalising pages faster than I could revert. On Wikibooks, I have rollback power, enabling me to fix vandalism much faster. Is there such a power on Wikiquote, and if so can I apply for it please.--Collingwood 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you try m:Global rollback, as there is none here, yet. -- Cirt (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Rollbacker" has not been set up as a distinct user right on this project. Perhaps it would be a good idea, or perhaps we just need to recruit more active Administrators. Mass rollbacks would be unnecessary if we blocked the perpetrators more promptly. ~ Ningauble 16:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenn & Erma Bombeck


I see no signs that a John Glenn page ever existed here, but believed one once did. If there was one that can be restored, please do so, and I will add some sourced material, and if there is not please inform me here, and I will attempt to create one within a few hours. ~ Kalki·· 16:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion has come up by a very impressive new user here, and I am requesting that Erma Bombeck be restored, which was deleted on 28 February 2010. I am only briefly checking in right now, but will work on sourcing quotes and adding to this page within the next few days. Thanks for the attention. ~ Kalki·· 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC) + tweak[reply]
 Y Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit is continually removing wikilinks to well established Wikipedia articles, despite multiple warnings to stop on their talk page. Instead, their response is to call the editor attempting to engage them in conversation a "nob". Will an admin please issue a block? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 19:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of a AbuseFilter requested


Hi. As you have probably seen, there is a crosswiki vandal bot operating, and we have been capturing at source where seen. I have a simple AbuseFilter that can be put in place to identify accounts that are possible, and I would like to ask your permission to add it, or someone to be able to add it if that is your preference. Thanks. sDrewth 16:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine, please do add it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done We are finding that they are popping up through the English language wikis, and post spam to user pages. It just records, and with the nonsense usernames, you can usually get a good indication that you can block. sDrewth 11:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat attention at WQ:BOT


Several requests at Wikiquote:Bots have been languishing for a long time without resolution. One applicant is considering taking his request to Meta due to inactivity here,[1] but the bot policy at Meta does not provide for this. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for not giving much attention to this page, but it doesn't appear that there has been much in the way of community discussion to reach consensus on any of the pending proposals. BD2412 T 23:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also waiting for any discussion on the requests. I would also like to say that when I was asked to become a bureaucrat, I accepted with the caution that it is not really my area of strength and that my knowledge on the processes was quite limited. I had hoped there would be more in the way of specific instructions on how to proceed. Absent that, I have tried to follow the example of others (e.g. for username changes). I realize that I have done extremely little in the way of bureaucrat tasks and if there are others that are more suited to the role, I would gladly give it up. Otherwise, is there anyone that could perhaps write up some instructions for the bureaucrat tasks? I've often felt this is an area lacking on the site: specific instructions for those less technically savvy, but who still wish to help wherever possible. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The technical aspects of how to grant user rights are very simple. (Click "user rights management" on any User Contributions page.) As you both rightly note, the problem lies in granting rights "subject to community consensus" when there is no discussion. Bot flag requests seldom receive much comment because bots normally do gnomish work that attracts little attention, and because bot operators are often interwiki workers with little or no prior activity here. I.e., nobody much cares and nobody knows them.

      Aphaia, who seems to have handled most requests in recent years, appears to have taken the approach of granting unopposed requests if the user complies with policy and appears to be fairly experienced. It would be better if someone commented on the quality of their work, someone proficient in enough languages to review it, but who would that be? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I closed the requests where it appeared to me to be some input on the merits of the requests. I left a few open where there seems to be conflicting opinions. I then archived those I had closed. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Ningauble, that has been what I've been doing exactly. I was sometimes much so bolder that I granted applicants whose experience was not established yet. The policy we installed requested operators to run their bot without flag as a test so that we could examine its edits. I am not sure if it works still but it was once a worked modus operandi in any way. As for language check (it matters when the bot works mainly for interlang links), they often seem to just trace existing interlang network, therefore there is no big difference of quality between each operators. While I could rely on my own linguistic knowledge, problematic operations were found very rare, and they could be easily detected without language skills: for example, misplacement of links (specially in case the links were placed in an unusual place like a subpage) or accidental removal and alike. Based on my experience and the current size of this project, I suggest a possibility we could be more relaxed to review bot requests. Thoughts? --Aphaia (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding language, it takes no proficiency to run a bot that traces existing links, but just because it's automatic doesn't mean it's right. The policy statement on being able to communicate in English is not about reading what you are linking, though that is a good thing, it is about being able to understand and respond when something goes wrong. A couple examples from my experience resolving bot problems may clarify the point:
  • Sometimes the incoming links are wrong, as happened when Déjà vu was disambiguated to Déjà Vu (2006 film).When a bot reverted removal of incorrect links it had added, I contacted the operator in English. He understood, replied in English, and fixed the incoming links.
  • Sometimes the automated script has bugs, as happened when Pywikipedia simultaneously had the same project in a table of projects to be linked and in a table of projects to be deleted, resulting in the "BotWars" incident with a high volume of bots reverting each other. I contacted multiple bot operators about the situation. One of them replied in ways that seemed non-responsive to the problem, and has subsequently indicated that he has little English.
It is true that these problems do not happen very often, but I think it is prudent for bot operators to be able to communicate effectively. Otherwise, when things do go wrong we could be in a position of "block first and ask questions later". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I take your point. Minimum English competence for communication is sure required, and that is what our policy states already. As for permission for running the bot, I don't understand the policy demands, not as same as some other projects do. --Aphaia (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Can anyone technically wiser than I please figure out what happened to the WQ logo? I suspect it occurred when the old image was deleted, but I'm not sure how to fix it. The link is still there, but the image is blank. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this problem until you mentioned it and I refreshed the server cache. Undeleting File:Wiki.png appears to have fixed it. Is it working for you now? (I believe this is the default file name that Wikimedia software expects to use for the main logo on every wiki.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh that's annoying, are we sure this is a default thingy in the coding, and we can't use an image from Commons? -- Cirt (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I confirmed that this is the MediaWiki default before adding a warning to the file description page. It can be overridden with software settings but Wikimedia configurations use the default. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks very much for the helpful explanation! :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all appears to be working now. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm reporting here that I've blocked AwSDFGSAWfrtg for vandalism, as it was vandalizing as high speed and I saw no sysop active for the last few hours. It is a clear throwaway account, but I'm reporting it here as I've had to disable the user's talk page and so that the admins can fully review my actions. I've also performed a mass deletion of the user's page creations. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 00:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. We don't exactly have 'round-the-clock coverage here. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is ever a lack of manpower for countervandalism, the project can request to be opted into the global sysop wikiset (meaning users with the global sysop userright can act as local sysop for countervandalism purposes, see m:Global sysop. Not suggesting it's appropriate or anything, just figured I'd let you guys know given you raised the issue :) Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 22:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason not to, offhand. BD2412 T 01:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of blocking with the same settings AwSDFGdSAWfrtg as it's clearly the same guy again, and deleting the talk pages he created. Please trout me if that is not okey. Snowolf How can I help? 18:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Quite rightly done. BD2412 T 18:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That means now EnWQ invites global sysops? (I won't oppose, just curious). --Aphaia (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although we have not officially "opted in", stewards and global sysops have occasionally helped out since the number of regularly active admins declined here in the past couple years. Personally, I welcome these "emergency interventions", and I would not be opposed to opting in. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I've noticed. As far as I know those occasional emergency interventions cause no trouble, and apparently our manpower is declined comparing with past few years ago. Why not opt in it officially, of course with community consent? In my observation it wouldn't change anything, but just recognize and formalize the current situation. To opt in global-sysop set officially, we have to raise the issue on VP rather than here, but first I'd love to see if the current team is fine with such change or if there are issues we miss eventually but would like into consideration. --Aphaia (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that we don't have 24 hour admin coverage, I think opting in for GS is a good idea. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be helpful. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anon on personal vendetta

edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Despite having created some pages, anon clearly has nothing positive to contribute to the project. Over the past few weeks, this editor has often made great lengths to undo many trimmings in deliberate violation of WQ:LOQ and particularly focuses on pages I've worked on - many of which he has tackled for weeks before I stepped in. Editor's "declaration of war" against me as posted on UDScott's talk page, which makes for great comedy, is clear indication of his disruptive behavior and all-too-personal vendetta because site policy on limitations is being enforced to his detriment. An IP check indicated possible use out of Wentworth Military Academy computers; notice to school authorities of irresponsible use and IP block may be recommended. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on my Talk page, while I agree that such a "declaration of war" has no place here, I find that some of your behavior in this dispute has also gone over the line and grown completely out of hand (e.g. writing "Fuck him very much!") - in fact I believe you have acted as if you have your own personal vendetta as well. I would advise you to try to adopt a more civil tone when discussing things. As I wrote before (see Talk:Down Periscope and User_talk:Eaglestorm#Down_Periscope), while you usually place your edits under the banner of trimming for the quotation limits, often you do more damage while doing so - and often indiscriminately remove valuable quotes without thinking about them. Just because a given set of quotes exists on a page and is within limits does not mean that an additional quote that someone adds should be immediately removed - instead, perhaps another quote could be removed in its place. You usually just undo changes people make without taking the time to consider what has been added - which again leaves a bad taste in the mouth of those who are trying to add quotes. And I again recommend a different approach when discussing such removals with those who put them there - give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not merely trying to circumvent rules, but rather are trying to add something of value. Finally, edit wars do no good for anyone - if you feel someone is truly trying to stuff pages, there are certainly other methods of dealing with it, including discussing it here or at the VP. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To underscore what UDScott has said:  You are both obviously trying to improve Wikiquote in your own ways, but you are both acting like characters in a shoot-'em-up game. The edit-warring and incivility have got to stop. Show a little respect for Wikiquote by treating each other with respect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble why show that when his edit summaries show arrogance? If he can't deal with the policies, he should stop editing. I've had enough of giving LOQ violators benefits of the doubt. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be so presumptuous as to butt in: Wikiquote:Assume good faith.--Collingwood (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is no longer possible when he frets and whines about limits we've already set and he is more than eager to violate. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could add something here. I agree with UDScott in general- he is sensible and treats even warring editors with patience and respect. Second, Ninguable's comment that the "edit warring and incivility have got to stop" is correct. In that regard, however, I feel compelled to state that Eaglestorm has, so far as I have seen, been extremely discourteous to anyone who disagrees with him at all. That's no excuse for rudeness on my part, but his, I would argue, is far worse. And I am all-too-familiar with something Eaglestorm says above, the "conform to the rules or get out" approach. He's said it before and I disagree completely. Disagreeing with the rules and finding a way to change them is how we have the United States of America, the Republic of Ireland, and most recently a free Libya. Had all those people sucked it up and dealt with it, conforming to the rules without question, I think the world would be a lot less free. And I don't recall Eaglestorm giving anybody on this site the benefit of the doubt. Ever. On his own talk page, Eaglestorm swore a vendetta on me because he tasted defeat in the edit war on Down Periscope's page, which is where all this nonsense started in the first place. Many of the pages he claims I have targeted, I created. And in case everyone here hasn't read this pearl of wisdom from his talk page just yet, I'll add it here. Eaglestorm's words speak for themselves.
"'I don't like that user,' he says on your talk page? He frets and bitches out over the games limitations and he wants to turn his attention to other avenues? Fuck him very much! and because of that, I will definitely go after every article he ever fixed and if nobody has trimmed that, I will...when I'm done with him, he'll wish he never messed with me. Putang inang anon yan (Tagalog for "that son of a bitch anon") --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)"
Last of all, to whom it may concern- I realize I have stepped out of line on some occasions, gotten too into my disagreements with Eaglestorm. I apologize for those mistakes, and will cause no trouble from here on. ( 22:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Oh 'tasted defeat'? You tell yourself that ... for someone whose edit summaries often include the Supreme Court and whinings about the Soviets - your "go away" and find a better excuse edit summaries don't scare me either. And your own editing history has given me cause to continue more trimming. You can't handle your work being cut down? Get out. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I will. You started this. I'll be here to the finish, so there will be no "GET OUT" for me. No thanks. Your life must depend on maintaining this tone of imperialistic superiority, laughing down at someone who is the same rank as you- you've just got a nametag. That's it. I'm not trying to "scare" you, so whatever. GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT. You sure are a kind and generous soul. It goes on. Even after the much-talked-about LOQ violations have ceased, it goes on. This isn't about that anymore. It's about getting ride of me. Getting me to GET OUT of Wikiquote. Sorry I can't oblige. ( 04:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Let's not allow ourselves to forget who has said what here. Eaglestorm has so far called me: a son of a bitch, a whiner, called my actions "bitching", repeatedly told me to leave Wikiquote for absolutely no reason at all, said "fuck him very much" and again, vowed to make me "wish [I'd] never messed with [him]. And Eaglestorm has, in some of the pages we continue to fight over, abandoned the LOQ argument and reverted to the old refrain of "unjustified restoration of unnecessary edit" which, just as on Down Periscope, means nothing. Nothing except he simply doesn't like what I did. All this added to an extreme level of hostility and unwillingness to back off or compromise in any way once the all-important rules are finally enforced. And to tell the truth, I can very much "handle" my work being "cut down". That's why I keep putting it back, and will never, ever stop doing so. ( 04:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Honestly, this whole thing is just growing tiresome. Should the edit warring continue, both of you will be blocked until you can act in a more civil and responsible manner - no matter who is at fault in this dispute, it has gotten beyond the point of reasonableness. Please just either find a way to play nice or just avoid each other - there is enough work to be done on this site so that you never have to bump into one another again unless you actively seek confrontation out. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UDScott, you tell that anon who tries to kiss your kiester with all his block diatribes on your talk page to simply follow LOQ protocol or get out. His reversions of trims I've made, not to mention his crap over at Modern Warfare 2, are what started this. Yeah heap up your arrogance about defeating me. Spare us your delusions ... "imperialistic superiority" and no "get out" for you? Wow, what a way to include geopolitics into the equation. Bravo (slowclap) --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't find any arrogance in UDScott's comment on this matter. Eaglestorm, if you keep such a hostile attitude toward everyone, not only your counterpart of the editwar but also other fellow editors, as UDScott suggested you. --Aphaia (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aphaia, I was not referring to UDScott RE arrogance. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency checkuser access


To alert the Wikiquote community that I recently undertook emergency access for Checkuser checks following a crosswiki vandal attack. I have informed your checkusers of the details via the checkuser network. The information gained enabled a global block of the vandal. sDrewth 10:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QOTD 12 May 2012


The quote at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/May 12, 2012‎ will have to be copied from there or below into Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 12, 2012 by an admin as the rolling protection had already kicked in when I went to edit it.. ~ Kalki·· 00:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.
~ L. Neil Smith ~

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editwarrior at George H. W. Bush

edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) altered the words of a quotation, then three times within 24 hours deleted multiple citations containing the original wording that they had effaced. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems to have quieted down. Since the quote is attributed, it really only needs one citation, that being whichever was the earliest to claim direct knowledge of the statement having been made. If multiple people claim to have heard the statement being made, then perhaps several recountings are in order. BD2412 T 03:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - MediaWiki:Noarticletext


MediaWiki talk:Noarticletext#Edit request, thanks in advance. --Z 15:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VfD:LEGO Exo-Force


Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/LEGO Exo-Force has been open since 10 May. It looks to me like a "No consensus" but I am reluctant to close a non-unanimous VfD in which I took part. Can a non-involved admin look at it please.--Collingwood (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I agree with your assessment. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]