Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/030


edit IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This IP has been globally range-blocked by a steward. ~ Ningauble (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Creationism articles


The images on the Kent Hovind and Ken Ham articles (which another registered user has pointed out don't violate Wikiquote:Image use policy) have been repeatedly removed by an anonymous user ( who first decried the images as "unnecessary", then as "clearly for trolling", despite the fact that the majority of images are of animals or religious art which are perfectly illustrative of the quotes in question. - Mariomassone (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though there are always potentials for contentions on the use of various images, and there might be valid arguments made for use of some others in some instances, I can agree that these used generally seem to be within the guidelines for the use of images here, to illustrate specific quotes and indicate aspects or issues related to signifiant statements on the pages, and I have again restored them, as has been done previously by others. ~ Kalki·· 12:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The images were clearly posted to try to make fun of them. Wikis aren't the place for that. -- 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fail to see how a picture of Loch Ness to illustrate a quote about Loch Ness, or an artistic depiction of the devil on a quote about the devil is "making fun". Also, the fact that you removed the quotation from the top image of each article is suspicious. -Mariomassone (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh wait, sorry. not all the images were trolling. I'll remove the ones that are. -- 02:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom


I don't often come to WikiQuote, and am much more active on Wikipedia and Wiktionary, so I was kind of surprised by all the remarks made by the user DanielTom that go entirely against WP:CIVIL. He was vigorously supporting Donald Trump on his article page while adding mostly negative quotes to Barrack Obama. Nothing inherently wrong with that - it's only human to have an opinion. But what did bother me were his provocative and borderline slanderous edit summaries.

These clearly go against the edit summary policy, which discourages uncivil and inappropriate summaries (including snide comments). By doing this, it effectively circumvents WQ:QLP and WP:BLP while still outing unsourced disparaging remarks for all to see; there is no source that Obama was lying or that he made a joke (apart from a tabloid), and many of the remarks are opinions derived from personal conclusions.

But this isn't a discussion about Obama or American politics. My main complaint is something I saw after that, which is his attitude towards other editors (including me).

  • On Kalki's page, DanielTom started a discussion titled "you should be ashamed of yourself", containing the text "So... you don't actually mind images highlighting and promoting "asinine racist delusions", as long as they make your political opponents look bad." I'm not sure where that comes from, but it's hardly an appropriate way to start a discussion and clearly violates WP:NPA. Here he refers to the concerns of him and another editor: "... a flagrant double-standard or politically motivated, [like] IOHANNVSVERVS' or Obama-loving Kalki's".
  • I've seen several snide edit summaries such as this one personally attacking Illegitimate Barrister. Here he immediately threatens him with a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard or Village pump over the use of blogs (which, ironically, he also does as can be seen above). Today (24 July) he also seemed to have been Wikihounding Illegitimate Barrister from 00:07 to 00:38, repeatedly reverting him on 4 completely different articles.
  • I don't know what happened regarding CensoredScribe, I guess there was a fair reason for his ban, but DanielTom's hostility against him is still worrying. Here: "You have added so much garbage and so many off-topic "quotes" to Wikiquote theme pages that it's probably going to take us years to undo all the damage. Your reading comprehension is evidently worse than a 5 year old's, and I even thought you could be mentally challenged, but after seeing this I now believe you are just trolling." Calling another editor "mentally challenged" because of their editing behaviour, no matter how disagreeable, goes so far against WP:NPA that it could probably stand on its own to explain why this user is unfit for the project.
  • Here he indirectly calls Ningauble a "useful idiot".

There's quite a bit more, but I'm sure the other editors involved are aware of that already. It should probably be noted that I didn't want to start with this. When he immediately re-reverted my reversion of his uncivil reversion on Donald Trump with the edit summary "revert troll" (again failing to assume good faith), I went to his page to inquire and saw several edits of him that showed widespread disbehaviour. I tried to confront him on this, but he removed my comment and called me a "troll" (again). I find it unfortunate that he completely rejects criticism and concerns. It's one thing to almost solely make controversial edits, but if one is incapable of cooperation I don't see the point of being on this project besides pushing an agenda. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By choosing to focus on a very small but carefully-selected number of edits, and ignoring all the others, you can demonize anybody.

Of course I don't "completely reject[] criticism and concerns". And everyone who has ever talked to me in good-faith knows this. But when they come from bad-faith trolls (socks?) like you, I may. Just look at your attitude towards me from the beginning. You restored an edit by a blocked vandal with out of order, poorly formatted and unsourced quotes; of course I reverted you. And I should add, your incoherent and one-sided presentation above only confirms my reservations.

You say I am "vigorously supporting" Trump. I said "Obama-loving" Kalki. The difference is, my comment was relevant to the discussion, which was about possible political censorship. I will actually say that my edit summaries on the Barrack Obama page are accurate, and that I don't find them uncivil. (But I accept that different people have different sensibilities.) I am prepared to defend each one of them, although most them them (if not all) are taken directly from journalistic titles.

On to your "main complaint": you claim that I "personally attack[ed]" User:Illegitimate Barrister because I wrote in an edit summary:

  • "Eugène Ney Terre'Blanche (31 January 1941 – 3 April 2010) was a Boer-Afrikaner criminal" — clearly, it was User:Illegitimate Barrister who wrote the intro

Is this really a personal attack? Or are you just trying to make me look bad at all costs? Do you agree with Illegitimate Barrister's intro? You say that I "revert[ed Illegitimate Barrister] on 4 completely different articles", as if that were a bad thing. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of articles where Illegitimate Barrister's additions are going to have to be reverted, sooner or later. Just like hundreds or thousands of CensoredScribe's edits have been rightly reverted. See here for a short explanation (and an admin agreeing with me).

You then bring up an edit from over 6 months ago, just to pile on. You are new to Wikiquote (or are you?), and don't understand the damage CensoredScribe has done to this wiki. Or how much work it is to clean it up. (Re. "useful idiot", that was obviously a joke. I'm not going to apologize for sometimes writing edit summaries that are funny or entertaining to me. And N. has a sharper tongue than I do.)

You say I am "incapable of cooperation". Not true. I often seek feedback and ask questions when unsure about how to best improve articles, and have learned a great deal from more than one editor here. And I sometimes (many times, if I include here finding sources for quotes) help other editors with their questions. You've looked at my edits, so you know you are purposefully being unfair and dishonest. You say I am only on this project to push an agenda. I started editing Wikiquote in 2012 adding quotes to the Bertrand Russell page, and the overwhelming majority of my edits from then on have been (and continue to be) to literature pages. But you want to make it all sound negative. I understand that. Have a nice day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to address one thing. Prinsgezinde claims he started this section because of my allegedly "uncivil reversion on Donald Trump". Let's see what he's actually referring to:

  • CensoredScribe's edit: "Two more gay quotes and one on hand shaking. Ivana Trump and Gene Simmons." Notice the first quote CensoredScribe added is worse than unsourced: it made a previous quote appear unsourced, and claimed for its own a source where the new quote isn't found. This is typical of CensoredScribe, as anyone who is familiar with his incompetent editing knows. The second quote he added appears to be floating with no source (again, typical) and the third is not in chronological order.
  • I revert CensoredScribe's edit: "first two are out of order and unsourced – Undo revision 2141703 by CensoredScribe (talk) feel free to add them back carefully, properly ordered and adequately sourced". Nothing uncivil here. Prinsgezinde's claim is false! CensoredScribe then reverted me back (as he always does), and I reverted him again with the edit summary: "I don't have to fix your mistakes and lazy editing". (Ningauble appears to agree.)
  • Prinsgezinde restores the vandal's edit: "Undo revision 2141714 by DanielTom (talk) - Unexplained revert and uncivil response. They are sourced, and "out of order" is not a valid reason." Notice that right away he starts with bad-faith. And right away he claims my response had been "uncivil". But that is false. (And the first quote is not in the claimed source, that I can see. It is unsourced. It, along with the others, messed up the article's formatting too.)
  • Prinsgezinde follows up by restoring a quote from a blog: "Rv biased censorship of criticism" So he also accuses me of censorship. Notice that poor-quality quote is taken directly from a blog, is not quoted anywhere, and is accompanied with an image caption that reads "Trump has aligned himself with the white." which is not even a full sentence.
  • I revert him: "Undo revision 2150304 by Prinsgezinde (talk) "Trump has aligned himself with the white." is not a full sentence, makes no sense. Blogger is not a presentable source" My first interaction with Prinsgezinde. No incivility. Then I saw that he had also restored that CensoredScribe's edit which had messed up the page and that had unsourced material, with an edit summary claiming "Unexplained revert and uncivil response". Again, that was false, because I had explained the revert, and had been civil.

So it was Prinsgezinde's lies detailed above that led me to revert him with the edit summary "revert troll". He got upset that I called him as a troll (even though his false edit summaries were trollish), and that motivated him (as he admits) to start this hit-job section. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're very wrong about being able to find edit summaries like these for most editors. It is unusual and rather POV to make judgment calls about subjects in edit summaries. BD2412 T 03:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm wrong about something I never claimed I could do? Most editors don't make such edit summaries – even I rarely make them. What I said was that (1) they are not inaccurate, and (2) if you google "my" edit summaries on the Barrack Obama page you will see that they match exactly with the headlines of many of the newspapers that reported the quotes. But from now on I'll voluntarily limit myself to "+1" ("add quote", or equivalent) edit summaries at least on that page (and others where controversy may arise). ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. Ah, you were probably referring to my very first sentence, but just to clarify, I wasn't thinking of edit summaries there, exclusively. ~ DanielTom (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, and that's why I wanted to confront you about it at your talk page. But since in both the interactions we had you dismissed me and called me a "troll" (while recommending I do exactly this), I don't know why you'd respond in such a way. As I said before, I'm sure you had reasons. But that doesn't excuse such incivility towards other members of the project. I provided their names to hear their side of the story. Naturally, if as you said the editors in question know that you are a good faith editor and that you were kidding or joking lightly in your mentions of them, they can vouch for this and it can be verified. But you can't know if others perceive a remark the same way you wish them to perceive it. As for my revert, it was indiscriminating. I noticed you had reverted several edits of CensoredScribe and IllegitimateBarrister using such edit summaries as "I don't have to fix your mistakes and lazy editing" (which was the one that I found uncivil). At this point I didn't yet know that there were problems with CensoredScribe, but still, this is not an acceptible edit summary. Another thing that should be noted is that when starting a discussion at the AN, it's the point that I provide diffs and my complaints. You said so yourself. But that doesn't give you the OK to call me a "bad-faith troll" (again with the troll) and accuse me of being a sock for no reason whatsoever. This isn't a fight. I'm voicing my complaints and if you have complaints about me, you can start one on me. If you have complaints about my complains then that's fine, but argumenta ad hominem and appeals to hypocrisy are unhelpful.
PS: Yes, I am "new" to WikiQuote. That's between quotes because that means I don't often come here, but have been here since I started on Wikipedia. I addressed this in the first line of my complaint. But incivility is frowned upon on all Wiki projects alike.
PPS: I forgot to link User:IOHANNVSVERVS. Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My calling CensoredScribe's lazy editing "lazy editing" was not uncivil, and hardly justifies your own incivility, smears and misrepresentations towards me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The locus of this dispute, as I see it, is the restoration of previously removed content in the Donald Trump article by Prinsgezinde. This was removed again by DanielTom,[1] which gave rise to a brief, abortive exchange on DanielTom's talk page.[2]

    Before delving into criticism of DanielTom's conduct in other regards, which may have merit but are only argumentum ad hominem with respect to the contested edits, let us examine the three edits of Prinsgezinde that are in dispute.

  1. Prinsgezinde's first edit to the page[3] restored content, originally posted by CensoredScribe [4] and removed by DanielTom[5], that included unsourced quotes and a patently false citation, contrary to Prinsgezinde's assertion that they are sourced. On appeal by CensoredScribe the removal had been endorsed by myself[6] and by UDScott[7]. It may be possible to salvage some parts of that edit, but restoring unsourced and false content is not appropriate.
  2. Prinsgezinde's second edit to the page[8] restored content originally posted by Illegitimate Barrister[9] and removed by DanielTom[10] and myself[11]. First of all, Prinsgezinde's edit summary, "Rv biased censorship of criticism", is plainly false. Far from being critical, the quoted blogger expressly says "this is a very positive development for America" in the linked blog post. (2) I stand by my original rationale for removing the quote: it is not widely quoted, and this blog post is not notable. (Cf. my position on bloggery at Wikiquote talk:Quotability#Tweets, blogs, chatrooms, &c..)
  3. Prinsgezinde's post on DanielTom's talk page[12] made no attempt to enquire what was wrong with the reverted edits or to explain why they should be retained. It was entirely and exclusively an attack on the person.
Whatever may be said about DanielTom's demeanor (which may indeed be over the top in some respects), regarding the actual edits in dispute here, Prinsgezinde is in the wrong. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you misrepresent my point there. That wasn't my complaint. I couldn't care less about that edit, am fully willing to admit I was wrong, and care solely about the way it was explained and how the behaviour was later justified. It should also be noted that I only posted in his talk page after seeing how he treated other editors. I feel that after seeing that, my statements were appropriate and definitely not an attack. I could have expected it would have been easy for DanielTom to paint me as an angry editor out for revenge, so to speak, but this is solely and exclusively about his behaviour. I would still like to hear from the other editors. I believe you and DanielTom have a reasonable relationship, but his comments towards the other editors were a lot more severe. So, in summary and once and for all: this is about DanielTom's editing behaviour in general. If people for some reason want confirmation that I don't seek revenge about people who annoy me, have a look at my history (on Wikipedia, for instance). But I would consider accusations of me starting this topic for other reasons as being an ad hominem, and not helpful in regards to the issue in question. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"(Undo revision 2221155 by incompetent CensoredScribe (talk) wrong section, and you messed up a citation)." I'm compiling a list of words that officially don't constitute personal attacks on the basis that DT uses them and no one does anything. I mean if I used them I'd get banned, but anyone else with that many edits and years spent here can probably be just as mean and get away with it. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "remove 2 (added by incompetent CensoredScribe) that mention wind only in passing)" From someone whiny who selectively capitalizes sentences than complains about grammatical errors. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
then* ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Daniel Tom, that's one of the few times you've actually tried told me specifically what I did wrong and provided constructive criticism, instead of incivil comments that fail to explain what you know to others and indicate an unwillingness or inability to effectively communicate. But for the second time please remember to capitalize the beginning of even an incomplete sentence, an as·ter·isk just doesn't cut it grammatically and teaches others to write incorrectly as you do. Please feel free to list the times you actually had a constructive criticism as I'm listing the many times you did not.

So far I've learned incompetent lazy and clown (which I actually didn't mind all that much, because unlike you I can write something humorous and original) are all acceptable slurs. Want to add anymore samples of your charming means of educating and witty edit banter, so that newcomers can learn what exemplifies a proper edit summary instead of petty soap boxing and personal attacks? CensoredScribe (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed. One "l" too many. My default language setting is Portuguese, so spell-checker doesn't help me here. Of course it's always possible for me to make mistakes without noticing (though probably not as consistently as you), and I always appreciate it when they're pointed out to me – so, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for what is, I think, the only compliment you've ever given me. This threads length and the number of people who've contributed to it shows not a lot of people here find your edit summaries and POV pushing very funny, so like when Kalki pushed political POV through links I recommend you join a comedy wiki; just as you've recommend a certain editor on the page for God write a book, Encyclopedia Dramatica or Rational Wiki is probably a better fit for your visceral condescending tone than Uncyclopedia in any of its languages. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Daniel Tom notes in the discussion on Illegitimate Barrister "I don't believe in "punishment". Currently IB has more bad edits up than me, and yet they call for me to be banned still which sounds an awful lot like punishment to me and like Daniel Tom is painting an inaccurate picture of themselves.
Also from DT, "You then bring up an edit from over 6 months ago, just to pile on. You are new to Wikiquote (or are you?), and don't understand the damage CensoredScribe has done to this wiki." Or how much work it is to clean it up. I would like Daniel Tom to elaborate on what their grievances are, whether it's a count of how many of my edits they've personally reverted or edits they would like remove, I would gladly compare the number to IB's number of reversions and address remaining pages DT and I have been too "lazy" to revert.
Also, "(Re. "useful idiot", that was obviously a joke. I'm not going to apologize for sometimes writing edit summaries that are funny or entertaining to me. And N. has a sharper tongue than I do.)" I'm glad Daniel Tom is having fun at other peoples expense.
I agree with Prinsgezinde, "I find it unfortunate that he completely rejects criticism and concerns, however most of Daniel Tom's edits involve well known literary and political writers from before the invention of the electric light bulb, so calling their edits nothing but controversial is a bit of a stretch for me. Perhaps a topic ban for Daniel Tom and Kalki both if they continue to push politics in links and edit summaries, not a ban for editors who have contributed thousands of edits expanding wikiquotes understanding of the classics, though perhaps a block of up to a week, I've been blocked for over a month due to confusing something Daniel Tom said with something Ninguable said, so a block for intentional incivility and continuing maliciousness seems appropriate. It seems the primary basis for this discussion along with condescending edit summaries and an unwillingness to speak to others outside of a select circle of friends and admins regarding criticism. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube comment added as quote by WQ admin


Hey there folks, now I'm not a Wikiquote editor, I've stumbled upon this completely by accident, I don't have any idea about the ins and outs of this project, I'm a couple of months late, and I'm not much for internet drama, plenty of that at our local wiki, so feel free to tell me to buzz off if I'm way off base here. But I'm pretty sure basic wiki project rules and Wikiquote:Wikiquote and whatever still apply.

One of your current administrators (!?!), User:Illegitimate Barrister, has seen fit to add a YouTube comment to three pages on here about a year ago and then again in January this year, even rendering the YouTube screen name TheDreadBaron123something as "T. D. Baron" in the attribution. Here [13], here [14], and [15]. As I said, I got basically zero clue as to how you do things here, but what the hell.

I also first posted this over at VP a while ago, because I'm dumb and didn't realize you guys also got an admin board, which ought to have been quite obvious. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing this inappropriate content. "What the hell" is about right.

Adding a non-notable pseudonymous/anonymous post from an open comment/discussion thread was very poor judgement, and it is almost unbelievable that an administrator would use such a misleadingly bogus citation: the quote is not from the titled work, nor is the (mis)identified person author of the work. (I say "almost" unbelievable because I have actually seen this sort of thing before, from the same administrator.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was not a good addition. However, ultimately the process works. The bad is spotted and removed. BD2412 T 23:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like seriously, what is going on here? I got curious and User:Illegitimate Barrister looks to have done this many times in addition to the above! Random guys from a discussion board, sometimes with usernames changed to look like actual people in case their screen handles were off – but not always?! See [16] and [17] and [18], but that's not all! It's a major pain to go through literally hundreds of diffs, so I checked this out and just ctrl+f "civil war talk" in the articles listed. I'm absolutely flabbergasted.

You'll see the same process applied to United States (a quote attributed to a 'Red Harvest'!), Abraham Lincoln (two quotes by 'Forever Free'), Republican Party (United States) (three quotes from that forum, by 'Brass Napoleon', 'J. Peter' who is actually jpeter on those boards, and 'Forever Free' again), Georgia (U.S. state) ('Brass Napoleon' again), Confederate States of America (one by 'Forever Free', another by 'John Hartwell'), John Brown (abolitionist) (a quote attributed to 'Dan Wykes' who however actually goes by 'Danl1860' on civilwartalk), American Civil War ('Brass Napoleon' and 'J. Peter' again).

And that's just a single topic/site – don't forget my original post was about a YouTube comment, not the civilwartalk site.

Now I don't mean to be rude but how the hell is this not vandalism or against the rules, and how is this guy an admin, seriously? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let it go. So guess what I did? I went and randomly opened a couple more contributions by the user. In one I found a blogger being quoted[19]. In another, A REDDIT POST!!! [20] There's actually two quotes from 'Irish Fafnir' from reddit there but I just didn't have the strength to look up the second diff. In the next, a self help metaphysical preacher guy? Diff[21] & about the author[22] (not as outrageous as the others maybe, but still a rather dubiously notable addition, no?). Then literally some random dude's blog[23] (since removed). Joke car reviews – admittedly from a 300k YT subscribers author[24] so maybe not completely off. A joke about Detroit/Cleveland from a user of an alternate history forum[25]. Also tons and tons[26][27][28] of sourcing quotes to the aforementioned civilwartalk forum – I'm no expert but the quotes are probably fine judging by some googling, why ref them with a message board though. And these are just random finds from less than a year ago. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first bunch of "additions" (the Civil War Talk stuff) I mentioned in my 2nd post should be gone now. I have also removed two more things. First, a GT Yelverton quote which I believe does not pass notability but I pretty much stumbled upon it by accident. Second, SOMEONE'S COMMENT ON A BLOG (like, not even an article, but from the comments!) which was attributed to a random dude who happens to share the name with a rock guitarist[29].
I want to stress again that I don't know how you guys do things here, but this is beyond bewildering. It seems pretty clear to me that the above edits are just
  • the tip of an iceberg (as evidenced by a bunch of random edits from the past couple of months turning up more and more of this stuff),
  • clearly indicative of a hardcore POV/agenda (as much as, at its core, I might actually agree with it – just not like this at a wikiproject!),
  • and they go beyond this "simple" (though, I think, still clearly unacceptable) treatment of the topic of ACW to the bizarre realm of adding a joke from some message board.
As if literally quoting random people from the internet talking about the ACW was not bad enough. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another tip of the iceberg: Amazon customer reviews. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad CCCVCCCC has raised this issue. I also noticed that User:Illegitimate Barrister has been making edits that seem to be motivated more by a political agenda than by the intention of creating a high quality Wikiquote website. This includes quotes from non-notable and marginally notable sources. It includes quotes on theme pages that are marginally relevant to the theme. DanielTom has raised this issue with Illegitimate Barrister before. Illegitimate Barrister responded by merely deleting the attempt to begin a discussion. This seems to me contrary to the spirit of resolving disagreements by open and civil discussion. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Illegitimate Barrister added comments from LiveLeak too. (In one of them he links to the non-existent Wikipedia article "Captain Kuntflaps".) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would remove every quote linked to a speaker with a non-existent Wikipedia article. BD2412 T 18:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Linking to a nonexistent Wikipedia article is a common enough mistake for newcomers, especially when just following boilerplate examples. (I have inadvertently done it enough times myself, mostly due to typos or missing disambiguation, that I long ago acquired the habit of checking links in a preview before posting.) When an administrator with tens of thousands of edits does this habitually, I have to echo CCCVCCCC's exclamation again: what the hell! ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree completely. In this instance, however, I am proposing a rule of thumb for removing questionable additions rather than governance for future additions. BD2412 T 14:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of appearing to be out for blood or overly zealous or something of the sort, I was wondering if... well, if anything at all has been done to address the issue? I mean other than editors having to painstakingly check Illegitimate Barrister's edit history and revert reddit comments, youtube comments, fan message board comments and other examples of widespread vandalism. I had previously noticed he seemingly quit editing WQ and thus might have not noticed the message left at User talk:Illegitimate Barrister, but about two weeks back he had made a return. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: because I don't believe in "punishment", and because Illegitimate Barrister hasn't abused his admin tools, I wouldn't !vote to remove his adminship. He seems to understand what the problem is, and to have stopped adding YouTube comments (and the like) by anonymous people as quotes for good. Of course if he starts adding such quotes again, I'll change my mind. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this very reasonable assessment. BD2412 T 15:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before, I am not an active WQ editor so it doesn't feel like it's my place to get overly involved here, but let me just say that I can't quite believe what I'm seeing here.
We're talking about Illegitimate Barrister, an admin vandalizing dozens of pages and acting in very bad faith (see attempts to pass off youtube users as quote-worthy individuals with wiki pages). And ignoring the discussion here, or on his talkpage, which he simply "archived" without responding to Ningauble's request to comment – which doesn't quite strike me as understanding the problem here, unless there's been e-mails exchanged.
Incidentally, this is doubly peculiar because it's the same kind of "understanding" he had shown in the past when DanielTom had pointed out the exact same problem we're discussing here, as described by Peter1c in his Aug 7 post above. And while he might not have abused his rights, WQ:ADMIN does mention that admins ought to be "trusted" and "trustworthy" members of the community.
Oh and just to top it off, when I checked IB's recent activity, one of his first edits after coming back was reverting another admin's (Mdd) edit (summarized as "removing pov pushing" – and deleting about a dozen Michael Totten (?!?) quotes), while labelling it as "reverting vandalism"[30]. A change that was then re-rev'd by yet another admin.
So let me get this right – months of vandalism & unreliable pov pushing, getting warned or asked to stop or explain not just once, but twice, and not even responding to either request, and continuing at least in part in said behavior... and what happens is literally nothing? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't get it. Or, if he does, it's vandalism. Either way, I'm starting to think Illegitimate Barrister is too incompetent to edit Wikiquote. (Very similar to CensoredScribe – they both desperately want to up their edit-count, so they add all kinds of trash to WQ articles. Illegitimate Barrister's only redeeming quality at this point is that, unlike CensoredScribe, when his many bad edits are reverted he doesn't revert back.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to his continued vandalism of WQ, dubious POV pushing, and labelling reverts of these by other users including an administrator as "vandalism", he has now been asked to explain himself at least three times on his talk page (see above & talk history). Every single time there was no reply other than an immediate "archival" of the question without an actual reply. I would like to know what are the admins going to do? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't going to do anything, apparently. Here's another issue, just for the record: Illegitimate Barrister has no sense of balance, and very often creates pages with only pejorative/negative/insulting (sometimes racist) "quotes". This is especially concerning when they are about whole countries. Most of these attack pages' quotes are either by unknown authors, or hardly quoted anywhere (or both). He added many such extremely poor pages created by himself to Wikiquote's "Selected pages" on the Main Page (under "Places"). I objected at the time, but they are still there. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems rather obvious that nothing is going to be done about the above, which is both rather bemusing and amusing, but I just wanted to point out that IB has now been asked at least four times to explain his behavior – without a single response. Other than immediately removing any attempts at discussion from his talkpage, that is. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has had problems with adding quotes from obscure web sources to theme pages in the past, perhaps Illegitimate Barrister would be willing to speak with me about this issue, as I am facing similar concerns with about sections. If the page for Maddox is any indication, quotability from a secondary source isn't necessary for quotes from an internet celebrity with a wikipedia page, at least when it comes to their wikiquote page. I think Illegitimate Barrister would face much less resistance in creating new pages for niche interests than adding quotes to existing pages, though I doubt any of these Youtubbers and bloggers actually notable, unlike eye witness accounts of something like 9/11 quoted in a newspaper which are obscure but acceptable. PS: FYI Daniel Tom, if I wanted to up my edit count I would have made all the additions to Nuclear weapons, Nuclear power, Nuclear war and Organic chemistry quotes one by one instead of one hundred at a time. I also wouldn't show others collections of quotes I've found so I could have all the glory of systematically improving wikiquotes science coverage for myself one weekend at a time. As Daniel Tom's user page also mostly consists of an edit counter, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CensoredScribe:  This thread is about the conduct of Illegitimate Barrister, not Daniel Tom. If you are attempting to refute Daniel Tom's arguments in this discussion by criticizing unrelated conduct elsewhere then it is ad hominem . ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Daniel Tom doesn't believe in punishing an admin because of misuse of the privileges of a regular editor but they believe in punishing me and I have less bad edits up than IB right now, I don't have a page solely dedicated to my edits pending admin review, arguing I'm more problematic than that is a poorly constructed lie. My vote is a warning the next time it happens than the second time a three day block for wasting everyone's time: admins aren't above the rules. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to notice that User:TheKosmozoan has a similar edit pattern as User:CensoredScribe adding youtube links [31], adding quotes to not-directly related topics [32], adding large quantity of text [33], [34]; and starting articles with incomplete source data [35], which includes random bolding... and he is also working in the same field, and uses the same uncommon html-tags. What hit me at first was the number of quotes made in a short period of time [36], which suggests we are dealing with an experienced user. Any ideas what to do here? -- Mdd (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC) / 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything that leads me to suspect this is the same person. I am inclined to assume this new user is acting in good faith, and might benefit from a little polite and diplomatic feedback about improving their contributions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An "experienced user"? Ha, I wish! -- I'm rather quite new to this whole 'Wikipedia editing' business, as I can image (or at least suspect) is rather obvious at this point, given the long grocery-list of errors I seemed to've made, and as you've pointed out above. As for the incomplete articles you mentioned, I apologize; being new here, I thought I might just go ahead and create them using what little editing experience I had at this point in hopes that other more experienced users would correct/enhance them in due course. The way I see it, a modest but incomplete entry on a subject is better than no article at all! :P ...or perhaps I'm wrong on thinking as much? (Not a rhetorical question by the way, I really don't know the answer! Again, this is all very new to me.) As for Ningauble's input, if there's any help/pointers/advice (etc.) either of you can give a guy like me, I'm eager to learn and willing to listen. (PS I have no idea who this 'CensoredScribe' is). ~ Cheers, TheKosmozoan

Wrong categories and MW userbot to be blocked?


In the last days Special:Contributions/Babel_AutoCreate is creating user language categories with wrong capitalization. They should be deleted (just those created in August 2016). In addition, in other projects (e.g., wikidata and the account has been blocked until the problem will be resolved: the bug on phabricator is phab:T63993. This doesn't mean you must block it, it was just for you to be noticed. (but of course if you don't block it, please check his contributions every while). --Superchilum (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time the bot has gone off the rails. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. If not, I will escalate the issue to global functionaries. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I saw your post on Phabricator, thanks. Meanwhile, more categories. --Superchilum (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Blocked pending resolution of phab:T63993. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now in Greek


Yesterday I created the Administrators' noticeboard in Greek Wikiquote.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea a wikiquote could go that long without an incidence requiring administrators. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect Tenth Doctor page


There are several inaccurate quotes on the Tenth Doctor page, and for some reason it has been protected for an entire year by Ningauble, yet doesn't seem to have been needing protection. Jeffknight (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why this was protected for an entire year, and was going to change the protection level, but let it remain for now, as it is only protected at the level of new and unregistered users, and thus you should be able to edit it soon. ~ Kalki·· 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it had been indefinitely semi-protected and I reduced the duration by setting it to expire (log). (I did this with many pages I reviewed after a recent discussion about over-use of indefinite protection.) I would not object if someone removes the protection altogether. Since the article no longer covers the show's current season, as it did at the time it was originally protected, there is probably less inducement for bloating and edit warring. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please could an administrator place the content of the deleted Sam Allardyce page somewhere in my userspace so that I can see what's there and try to clean it up - or if it really is a lost cause, start again from scratch. Thanks, Waggers (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It contained only a single unremarkable remark that was misquoted from this news story. It would be better to start from scratch. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]



I just checked in very briefly here and blocked (talk · contributions) for vandalism, which was clear enough on many edits, but did not revert or delete the last 2 edits made, as possibly legitimate and retainable. I just thought I would note that, but don’t have time to stick around. I must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see they have been reverted, and have no argument against that. Just noting that before rushing off. ~ Kalki·· 14:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]