Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/034

Possible sock puppetry

I just want to bring to your notice that the users Nwalker3, Adekirim, Visite fortuitement prolongée,, Calypsomusic and Reps all seem to be sock puppets of Jedi3, they had the same editing patron centred around Islam, India and Indian religions related articles, they can be seen editing the same pages here:

Probably there are more accounts around. Rupert loup (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: The accounts are stale, I made some clean-up in some recent quotes, a lot are truncated and misrepresented like this example. In my opinion the articles where massive edits were made by this accounts need a clean-up and be checked that the quotes into are fairly presented according with WQ:NPOV. Rupert loup (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is probably the wrong policy to invoke here. The policy says: "Quotations included in Wikiquote do not need to conform to NPOV, as they are reflections of the point-of-view of the quoted individual". BD2412 T 13:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same policy states, "Wikiquote has a strict neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, which basically states that its mission is best served not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts, among which are the facts that various interpretations and points of view exist." While one may add contrary views, all views need to be represented as well by an editor. Also quotes need to be notable per many policies. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends disruptive IPs

Multiple IPs continue to make edits by adding non-existent quotes (like this edit, for instance) and unneeded narrator quotes that are far from relevant. I request that all Thomas & Friends articles be protected for a long period of time, because anything less than half a year will not stop them. I send these users warnings, but they act as if nothing had happened and continue their vandalism. WikiLubber (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal

Constantly adds notability-lacking single quotes (most of which were incomplete, particularly when it comes to character subsections) and writes quotes based solely on how they are written in DVD/Blu-ray subtitles (which are far from trustworthy and are never without error). I request that this IP be blocked for a long period of time and that all articles it vandalized be protected indefinitely. I send this user warnings, but it acts as if nothing had happened and continues its vandalism. WikiLubber (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply] and character pages

This IP has recently started creating pages for fictional characters from the video game 007: Blood Stone and Fate of the Furious. Although wikiquote does allow pages for fictional characters outside of the works they appear in, most of them also have discussions going on regarding whether they should be merged with the series casting doubt on whether this helps this project in any way. I personally only find this helpful for superheroes who have dozens of different publications over the decades, even dividing the eras of Doctor Who by which Doctor it is, is a bit excessive in my opinion. I figured someone with actual authority on Wikiquote like an admin should explain to this editor why this is a bad idea rather than me, given they can probably go into much greater detail explaining the problems with this for Wikiquote than I can. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better if you shortened the title. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, so what do you think about the character pages? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed these pages back to redirects and commented to this user regarding their inappropriateness. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current title is fine, but your situation is already resolved. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


MonsterHunter32 has been indeffed on English Wikipedia as a sock of DinoBambinoNFS. Read this link for more details. I am not sure what action can be taken here but I just thought about alerting the community here. Capitals00 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah come on. Yes I only created another account because my previous one was blocked. You're being vindictive and beating around an issue not related to here. But none of my accounts have been here and my edits are in good-faith despite people like you. I've tried to honestly talk with you and cooperated even after being outnumbered.

I don't regret it as many users have agenda because of which they try to get others blocked over any issue they can. I like to edit, that's why I can't take being blocked. The admins too there are egotistical and uncaring.

Nonetheless it wasn't your shoddy claims that got me blocked but technical data. I've been given the six-month offer, so I'll wait till then and might keep confronting disruptive editors, though I've already stopped wasting time editing here or there. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, MonsterHunter32 tried to remove this section about him from this page, even though it is clearly a relevant and useful heads-up to admins here. In any case, if MonsterHunter32 wants this section about him removed he should ask an admin to do it, and not remove it himself given the obvious conflict of interest. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this section, it is being unilaterally removed by MonsterHunter32. The claims made by MonsterHunter32 in this diff that he has accepted 6 months break is also false because only a few hours ago he attempted to evade his block with this account on English Wikipedia.

MonsterHunter32's claims that this issue has to do nothing with Wikiquote.[37] I find it incorrect because Wikiquote has no special sock puppet investigation, and it relies on the SPIs of English Wikipedia. Capitals00 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this section after removing it three times as I found it bringing issues of other Wikis here. I have restored it and comments of me and DanielTom as I didn't find it worth arguing and starting an edit-war over again, nor I have any wish to do so as I have decided to permanently quit. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find no instance of any of the socks identified on Wikipedia being used here. That said, an identified sockpuppeteer is a highly suspicious proposition to have on this project. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppeteers are suspicious propositions how exactly? I'm not familiar with a psychological profile akin to the dark triad for predicting future behavior of sock puppeteers the way cyber bullying is often considered a precursor to worse things to come. Workplace bullying is in the news right now because of the Me Too movement; identity fraud, the closest real world equivalent to sock puppeting, is not; no one returns to work under a different name after being fired to continue working for free the way Wikipedia editors do, and a news outlet would be far more interested in our bullying problem than our sock puppet problem, particularly how it may relate to the the large gender gap in editors and allowing a hostile environment for women by allowing bullying to go unpunished so long as the harassers produce a certain number of good edits, much like a company protecting a valued employee who is worth more to them than the feelings of their accusers. I don't see much of a difference between Daniel Tom saying I have the reading comprehension of a five year old and referring to another editor as boy or girl, which has sexist and racist connotations to it and would not be allowed at work, I was tempted to hit on Daniel Tom after insulting me to see if words of love were more taboo than those of hate here, however I had a feeling that unlike the insult, that would result in disciplinary action, where as all three statements would normally get you fired. I'm a sock puppeteer on Wikipedia though few of my edits using those accounts were removed, and so is Kalki technically on Wikiquote, if I'm not mistaken; I forget the justifications that were given for Kalki having multiple accounts. Wikipedia behavior was excluded from conversation on Rationalwiki as not pertaining to the operation of the wiki and effectively being an ad hominem attack, logic which applies as much there as it does here, although offsite harassment via Encyclopedia Dramatica was considered instead, which sort of contradicts the stance on Wikipedia behavior not being worth mentioning. MonsterHunter32 has volunteered to leave anyways, however I see a similar problem occurring with other editors in the future, just as I predict more bullying will go unpunished unless blatantly sexual in nature, though I have doubts even sexual harassment would be punished; I'm not sure what Wikiquote's actual priorities are, but they don't seem to reflect present societal concerns for bullying as identity fraud seems to be the issue taken most seriously here. CensoredScribe (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your reading comprehension was an issue because you were adding completely irrelevant, off-topic quotes to hundreds of theme pages in a disruptive fashion despite numerous warnings. That could be attributed to malice (vandalism) or very poor reading comprehension (incompetence). Take your pick. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC) last edit: 16:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that you were 95-100% correct in removing those fictional quotes from theme pages, seemingly only the quotes from South Park remain, if there is a magic number of bad edits you are allowed to make before being banned, I would have most likely passed that number within my first year of editing here, however you could have expressed why the quotes were irrelevant instead of monosyllabically barking labels and elaborated, I would have said not to add quotes from television episodes lacking a Wikipedia page, or movies with less than a 90% on rotten tomatoes, but instead you chose not to try and define what was wrong with my additions outside of noting they lacked google hits, (which suggests google is the ultimate arbitrator of notability and that there is no other metric), so that I could continue to make mistakes and you could continue to revert them rather than prevent them. Did you honestly think anyone would believe you have medical credentials in diagnosing me as having the reading comprehension of a five year old specifically, or do you admit you were exaggerating and unqualified to be diagnosing people's reading comprehension without the use of a standardized assessment the way it is traditionally done by professional school psychologists? Again, which of my quotes about rape, war or nuclear power is meant specifically for five year olds to be reading, you seem to have some bizarre views of what is appropriate for young children. Your diagnosis sounds awfully specific, and incredibly unlikely given people with that level of reading comprehension are typically held back from passing kindergarten. Besides, what if I am five, isn't that ageism? Kalki banned me when I suggested you had eye problems, you suggested I had mental problems but got off scott free to continue being a cyberbully in your abusive edit comments that teach new editors to abuse edit summaries as a soap box. Block Daniel Tom for incivility, soap boxing and giving medical advice by playing psychologist, for an amount equal to the block I received for diagnosing his eyes. Your communication or lack there of, reminds me of an unsourced quote about editors, "An editor is a person who knows precisely what he wants, but isn't quite sure." Using my criteria of a 90% on rotten tomatoes, which film quotes on wikiquote's theme pages don't meet that criteria? Do you have a better one for determining notability of fiction? Can you name a single example of an acceptable quote on a theme page taken from a television episode lacking a wikipedia page for that specific episode? I don't think you can, nor do I expect you to try as TV isn't something you have added quotes from, correct me if I'm wrong the only TV show you seem to have edited the page for, is the page for Death Note, and I don't think you've added TV quotes to any theme pages at all, suggesting a bias towards the mediums inclusion on theme pages. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CensoredScribe has decided to post the following warning on a new user's talk page: "Remember that despite what you may see more senior editors doing, please do not soap box using the edit summaries, it may not technically be against the rules here, but it should be." This is completely inappropriate. The edit summaries of the new user in question were all perfectly fine, so the warning must be perplexing to her. Thanks CensoredScribe for unscrupulously using a newcomer's talk page to make an snide comment about me just because I happened to leave a welcome message there. You really are something else and you don't deserve to be blocked at all. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was worried they might think you were a good example of an editor to emulate the behavior of and start leaving inappropriate edit summaries calling for an editor to be banned rather than making those statements on this page where it is appropriate, if an admin says this is soap boxing than I will accept the penalty for soap boxing, I would love to know what the penalty is for a single instance of soap boxing is for future references, so that I might begin to calculate what it would be if applied to the dozens of times you've done it. You really are "something else" as well Daniel Tom, most other editors know not to use edit summaries the way that you do. Also, you failed to answer any of my questions regarding your completely inappropriate behavior in the past, detailed in the paragraphs above; I will not speculate as to why you did not answer those questions, particularly not with an improper online diagnosis of your mental and or physical health or accusations that you are less fluent in English than you claim to be, akin to those you have lobbied against me, as that would be perceived as bullying a non native English speaker, which is unacceptable on Wikiquote, unlike bullying five year olds, or those with the reading comprehension of a five year old, which is perfectly acceptable apparently. I will gladly accept a block for soap boxing if it sets a precedent you will be held to. Imagine if every edit summary someone made included the words, "promote me to admin for good contributions like this one!", rather than what you do with reverts which is inserting some variant of "ban the person who made this terrible edit I reverted!": commenting on editors, including yourself, is not an acceptable use of edit summaries. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 edit warring again

MonsterHunter32 is again edit warring, this time removing from this page a section started by another user about him. (I'm not going to restore it again because I already know MonsterHunter32 would just keep removing it ad infinitum, despite the flagrant conflict of interest, and despite being warned not to edit war.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DanielTom started reverting

Please note that the section I removed has nothing to with Wikiquote as it is about an incident on Wikipedia. There is nothing to hide as anyone can see my account and find out I was blocked. I removed the section as this is not a forum for other websites.

It is ironic User:DanielTom says I'm "edit-warring" when I only reverted once and he himself reverted once. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also DT, I didn't revert Capitals00, I did make a comment myself in between. My own comment too was removed. Not a revert. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did revert him. I made a comment in between too, and you reverted it as well. You have now reverted Capitals00's comment about you at least three times [38] [39] [40], there's no point in denying it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, just twice. That too because I'm considering even the partial revert. Unlike you I am honest. I did make a comment myself in between before I removed it. Revert? Nope. Simple removal including my own edits. Oh and I'm not "turning the tables" but saying the truth - you reverted first. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You removed your own edits and the edit of Capitals00. So you did revert his edit. No point in denying it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for shifting your stand. As for reverting him, of course not, I didn't revert. I only removed an unrelated section. But you did start the reverting. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't shift my "stand" (sic). As I explain below, your strategy of adding a bunch of comments of your own that you yourself then remove in a failed attempt to mask your removal of the original comment by the other user, is still reverting. You reverted first, I merely undid your revert. And you then reverted me. Then Capitals00 also undid your revert, and you again reverted him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did. First it was only revert of Capitals00, now removal of myself and him. A removal doesn't become a revert until one does so. I haven't crossed 3RR. I don't intend to edit-war. You talked about letting admins decide, but you yourself couldn't wait for it. Not my fault. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This edit of yours is a revert. You reverted Capitals00, and calling it a "removal" doesn't in any way change that. Whether you later reverted other users too (you did) is irrelevant. If you go to the page history, and revert the page to an earlier version, prior to Capitals00's edit, and save the changes, you achieve the exact same result that you got. So you obviously did revert his edit – if you hadn't, I wouldn't have been able to restore it. Another way to see this is to imagine you not making the comments that you then removed. It then becomes much clearer. Capitals00 posts his comment about you, and you immediately (without the intermediate edits) revert him. For all effects that's what you've done, even though your comments in-between made it confusing. Again, there's no point in denying it, other than to waste time. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you have just admitted, you reverted Capitals00's edit about you; I restored it; then you reverted it again. Please stop with the false and stupidly misleading sub-titles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I said was Wikiquote is not a forum. Also I didn't start reverting you. Also didn't you say I should contact an admin if I had an issue with his edit? But you didn't follow your own principle and revrted. I'm saying the absolute truth which you omit always. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you said that while removing his edit. So you started reverting. Everyone can see it. You removed his edit about you from the Administrators' noticeboard. Don't you see the glaring conflict of interest? Then when I restored it, you simply reverted it again. You have thus reverted it twice, and this despite the obvious conflict of interest, and against two different editors, and against edit-warring rules. The reason it's you who should contact an admin if you want that comment to be removed from the Administrators' noticeboard, and not me, is that the comment is about you, not about me. I don't have a conflict of interest, you do. But you decided to just remove it yourself, even though it is about you and even though you had to edit war to keep it removed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't revert him, I did make a comment myself in between. My own comment too was removed. Not a revert. And only removed as it is not a forum. The end. MonsterHunter32 (talk)
Actually, you did revert him. I also made a comment in between, and you reverted it too. And just minutes ago, you reverted Capitals00 yet again. You keep reverting his edits about you despite the glaring conflict of interest and despite being warned not to edit war. I'm surprised the admins here haven't blocked you yet. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I didn't make a revert. I did make a comment myself in between and removed it. And your comment didn't originally exist. Also only when Capitals00 "edit-warred" by restoring, I did revert him and said it plainly the second removal was a revert. I have already said let the admins decide it. So what's the impatience? I haven't breached 3RR and I don't intend to edit-war. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did make a revert. Three, in fact. Just because you add comments in between, and then decide to remove those comments of your own, along with the comment by the other user, that doesn't make it not a revert. Had you just removed your own comments, that would be fine. But you removed the comments of the other user. You did revert him. No point in trying to hide it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two reverts, don't be dishonest, the second was a partial revert. I did make a comment myself in between before I removed it. And your comment didn't originally exist. This is not a forum, so I removed it. Also nothing can be hidden here, except in your mind. If I wanted to I could have removed it earlier too. This is not a forum for other websites. Admins can decide if it should stay. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me of being dishonest when it is you who are being dishonest. You fully reverted Capitals00 three times [41] [42] [43]. His last edit that you removed was not exactly the same as the previous ones, but your removal of it still counts as a full, not a "partial", revert. You removed all his comments about you from the Administrators' noticeboard, in their entirety, including his justification as to why they should not be removed. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A partial revert means partial. It wasn't the same as before. No matter what "justification"/excuses which didn't exist for days are to be made, let the admins decide on non-Wikiquote issues. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quitting - permanently this time

Although I could keep on arguing, I have no energy left to argue. These people keep misleading. DanielTom keeps on arguing. The last time he and his pal argued, I got sick with their arguments and many accusations. Even admins argued with all of us. Now Capitals00 is accusing another sucker - ChockerStalker who got blocked as a suspected sockpuppet just for undoing him even though it is not me.

I am not doing this any longer. I thought there'll be some quite, but there won't be. I have undone my edits. I'm leaving permanently since nothing comes out. I'm quitting permanently. Do what you want from now on. As the community decides whether to unblock, I don't think I'll be getting unblocked on Wikipedia too after my angry and abusing behaviour in UTRS and freenode channel despite their offer. So clearly I'm done.

User:DanielTom you can freely undo all the edits I removed from Jedi3's articles. I won't be stopping you. Admins can lift the interaction ban on him, he can restore hos edit if he wants. I've only wasted my time. Last time I got enraged so I shelved the plan to quit. But I'm not planning on ever coming back, so I won't interfere in anyone's edits nor I'm going to edit anything anymore. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also admins please archive these discussions once the process of reverting my removals starts. There's been a lot of fighting already and it won't be needed anymore since I've decided to let all my removals be reverted and have decided to permanently leave. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this statement, I have rolled back all of this editor's removals of text where this was the last edit to the page in question. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it seems 68 articles have been restored plus a few already restored by me and another editor in past. It won't have been fair for anyone since it is highly impossible for anyone to keep on arguing over such a large number of quotes. Therefore, I have decided to let them be and quit and not edit again. Goodbye. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only about 30 or so articles are left to restore. Hopefully, the users will restore them. Thank you and goodbye. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what other users may say, reverting the additions of even the most prolific editors does not take years; I'm sorry your time here was not more enjoyable, few if any editors set out with the administrators notice board as the page they intend to be spending most of their hours editing. Do you mind if I quote you on my user page as saying, "We can disagree on who is right or wrong. But we can all agree that the admins rarely bother to uphold the rules stringently here. Anyone can do anything it seems." I think it aptly explains the often paradoxical nature of the rules and their enforcement here. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reversions in question were not of additions. They were restorations of content added by other editors and removed by MonsterHunter32. BD2412 T 03:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the hassles and because I removed them, I have reverted all the removals I am aware I made. I also took care that other edits aren't removed. The situation as far as I know is resolved and I have nothing more left to do. I can neither edit Wikipedia as I will be recognised by checkusers and I doubt the community will let me back in. Nor I want to spend more time by facing arguments on Wikiquote. But I have let go of the disputes and edits here. All quotes have been restored. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any more quote left that I removed. If there are any, there won't be many and I believe the editors can easily restore them as I won't be here any longer. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why to quit? You've got plenty of talent - just use it the positive way!--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wikis have since long ago become a pointless battleground and I am tired of disputes, there is no point in staying. But hope others are happy that I decided to let it go. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Risto. Stay and go on. Just use your talent in the positive way.FotoDutch (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'll edit to make corrections and other edits that are needed but keep out of disputes as it doesn't bring anything. I'll still remain semi-retired, but I'll keep making edits time from time. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!--Risto hot sir (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC) - Different opinions must be discussed with open minds, that's the way to make this project better. A warning example is the Dutch Wq: masses of very important articles are not accepted for unknown reasons; there's only less than thousand sites at the moment. The good thing is that the Dutch people write eagerly at en-Wikiquote!--Risto hot sir (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote is not a place for our own opinions. The reason I disputed wasn't due to any opinion of any author, but simply because I found them being pushed merely to promote own agenda regardless of their notability. But there is no point in disputing if most people don't care. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles are not the place for our own opinions but the talk pages definitely are.--Risto hot sir (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No we aren't here to give our personal opinion on anything except on whether the content meets the policies. Discussion should not be based on promoting any specific POV or agenda by a person. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer and vandal

~ DanielTom (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

Hello everyone. I am looking to become a sysop, and I would appreciate if you would weigh in and show support.·_contributions). Thank you for participating. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 02:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the vote is over. A sysop should probably formally close it. J.A.R.N.Y.|🗣️|📧 20:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed this as an unsuccessful bid. I do think it was close. If another bureaucrat wants to review my determination and offer any thoughts, I would welcome that. BD2412 T 13:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need help reviewing a Global RFC

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with antandrus vandal, this guy needs to be blocked immediately!

Im an author of Lubek's Threelogy, Im classic boxing historian, antandrus has no idea at all what martial arts is. My 2013 award book can be found on amazon + it has great reviews.

Look what he did: PREVIOUS VER MUST BE RESTORED! he calls people globally banned users just to piss em off! whats interesting, users like tegel n ningauble followed antandrus. They are no better than antandrus because they did not look for the truth. Here's the proof he deleted correct information, he is also vandalizing that page, always reverting what he does not like.

N this is only a small sample of what he is doing across wikimedia projects: —This unsigned comment is by Marcianoauthor (talkcontribs) .

The above editor (Marcianoauthor (talk · contributions)) has been blocked as a pattern vandal — whose style matches that of a vandal of boxing pages who has been sporadically active over many years. ~ Kalki·· 00:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote now contains real barriers for searchers for quotes - 3 practical proposals to improve its accessibility

In Village Pump I recently placed a text with reasons why even very comprehensive web-pages on Wikiquote are rather difficult to reach for searchers for quotes. Clear examples are the beautiful and high-quality Einstein- and Bob Dylan-pages; their ranking in the search-engines is really bad: 15th / 18th ranking. This is I pity, and a waste of energy and possibilities on both sides: for searchers and for Wiki's who built the page. Both sides deserve better! The main reason for this is: the Wikiquote-pages don't describe the content of the page-content well. That is the only problem! I did some research on this question and give 3 practical proposals for rather small changes to improve the accessibility of the webpages. In one year Wikiquote can reach a double amount of visitors, I honestly believe it. I give also my arguments and proofs for that. I hope you will read them! See the text with 3 proposals on: (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits in Peter Pan

One user continuously adds nonsense and completely unnecessary (and completely inaccurate) extension to certain quotes. I request that that article be protected and this user be blocked indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected this page to be edited only registered users for 3 months. Kalki·· 23:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now that IP has set its sights on Robin Hood. And it is only a matter of time before it goes after other animated films. WikiLubber (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in The Adventure Begins, where the IPs continuously change Sir Topham Hatt's name to The Fat Director (which he was NEVER called in either the TV series nor the films). I request that these IPs be blocked indefinitely and that the pages be blocked for no less than the same period of time. WikiLubber (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One week of protection is not going to stop those IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, he was called the Fat Director in the early original books, but of course he should not be called that in articles about the TV series.--Abramsky (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

See: here and here --Feitoria (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two accounts have been labelled "possible" by CheckUser. Anyway, I think it's pretty obvious for everyone that the same person is behind these three accounts. --Feitoria (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VP discussion

Anyone have any thoughts on this discussion about Category introductions? ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another user (probably a sock puppet) censoring quotes critical of Islam

Xsaorapa (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log) is engaging in censorship of quotes critical of Islam. He has already reverted me twice when I attempted to restore them, so I'm not going to restore the censored quotes again (but someone should). Admins, please notice how Xsaorapa's censorship of quotes is often camouflaged: for example, here he deletes a quote by Christopher Hitchens, without saying anything in the edit summary, and at the same time adds other material so no one notices the removal. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing quotes for any reason is not vandalism, it is only when it is designed to disrupt. While I may not be involved, I suggest you be careful with the accusations you throw around. And also Wikiquote is not a place to promote your agenda against any religion. You may add critical quotes as long as they are notable. You must also promote all interpertations and views, not just one. These are the policies. Your own bias isn't allowed. Don't tag others as vandal over dipsutes. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you find they are socking, report at Metawiki, stop making accusations here without reporting and if it turns out false don't repeat it. You have no free speech here, stay within the policies. If someone removes a quote saying it doesn't meet a policy, that is not censorship. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing quotes in a camouflaged way, and removing them again by giving false reasons even after they are restored by another editor, amounts to vandalism. Also, trying to make Wikiquote Sharia-compliant is vandalism, as far as I'm concerned. And just for the record, the quotes being censored weren't originally added to Wikiquote by me, but by other editors. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I again say you have no freedom of speech here asides from what Wikiquote admins or community decide with policies. I went to Xsaorpoa's talk page and he has mentioned his reasons over them not meeting the policies for addition. If someone removes a quote over a valid reason, that is not censorship. You must discuss instead of just accusing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I never claimed you added the quotes. I was referring to your claims of censorship. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote:Limits on quotations is not a policy. I said it's not a policy, but that user still insisted (like you do now) that it is policy, even though it isn't, and even though he had been told that it isn't. Besides, most quotes he's been removing in a camouflaged way are very short. But, they are all critical of Islam. He is removing quotes based not on whether they are too long but on whether they are critical of Islam. That's clear for everyone to see. And it is unacceptable. He's also been changing and adding unsourced material to intros like in his most recent edit, again to make them more favorable towards Islam. Notice a trend? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote:Wikiquote explains the essence of Wikiquote and demands notability. There is also a guideline about it on Wikiquote:Quotability, though there are some contradictions. You already know about them. I never talked about Wikiquote:Limits on quotations.
If you want to dispute that it doesn't meet notability criteria do it at a talk page. If he doesn't give his reasons in the summary, simply tell him and have another admin warn him if he still doesn't listen. But trying to have others blocked, calling them vandal or sockpuppet is not the way to solve a dispute. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also next time be careful of fictitiously accusing me of saying things which I never said. I never once talked about Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. I was referring to our comments at complaints against each other in the past where I talked about WQ:WQ and WQ:Q. Also I referred to WQ:NPOV here. Never talked Limits on Quotations. Not just that you also never said whose sock you think Xsaorapa is. Baseless accusations cannot be allowed so please be careful. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Limits on quotations was the only "policy" directly cited by Xsaorapa. He said: «Per Wikiquote:Limits on quotations "Inappropriately lengthy quotes will be trimmed or discarded, with a maximum of 250 words per quote"». When I pointed out to him that «that's not a policy, and you are attempting to censor short quotes too (anything critical of Islam)», he undid my restoration of quotes, and again falsely claimed that «It is a policy they too long». By the way, isn't it suspicious that an allegedly new user that started editing Wikiquote little more than 2 weeks ago can already quote from Wikiquote:Limits on quotations? ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overly lengthy quotes are indeed problematic, but the better practice for overly lengthy quotes is to split out the most significant passages in them into quotes of reasonable length. BD2412 T 23:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he cited something that is not a policy or guideline, notability and impartiality is still a part of policies. Complaining to admins isn't the way to solve a dispute. It is best you discuss it where you have the problem and argue your case there that it meets all policies. Anyone can read up a policy/guideline, even a proposed one and look for it. I myself knew them in a few short weeks even though I never was here earlier, only on Wikipedia, so claiming someone as a possible sockpuppet because of it is bad faith. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here, I have tried to explain why I think some specific quotes should be removed. Xsaorapa (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xsaorapa has been confirmed as a sock of Feitoria. I have also googled Xsaorapa and the first page in google has a link to French wikipedia which shows that Xsaorapa and Feitoria are also indef-banned vandals/sockpuppets there. One can put the link through Google Translate. --Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like BD2412, I have also reverted unexplained deletions by Xsaorapa in some articles, who has camouflaged and hidden his deletions in most of his edits as DanielTom has explained above. There may be more articles that I have missed. The deletions and other changes can be made again by other editors if they are deemed justifiable, but the deletions should be explained and not camouflaged and hidden as they were. --Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is false, I have never been banned from the French wikipedia (See both accounts [44] & [45]), I have not edited anything on wikiquote with the other account Feitoria and never intended too, unlike you with your two others accounts doing disruptive edits on wikiquote. Xsaorapa (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the admins think I deserve sanctions for using another account to do an admin request, I will accept what they decide but it wouldn't be fair to sanction me for while completely ignoring the obvious case of sockpupperty from Jedi3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --Xsaorapa (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So how are your French accounts not socks when they were editing at exactly the same time over there? How are your two accounts here not socks when they were both doing edits related at least partly also to my account at the same time? (Xsaorapa also did revert some of my edits.) And how come you continue to falsely label as sockpuppetry when I explained at Meta that Sockpuppetry is when the same person votes in the same discussions in the same article, pretending to be the same person, to give more weight in votes. Being forced to create a new account because of losing the password of the old account is not sockpuppetry. Anyway, I also note that you have reverted and redone your deletions without moving the deleted quotes to talk with explanation as asked by DanielTom. --Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if he socked somewhere else. What does matter is if he did it here specifically. It doesn't depend on discussion to label it sockpuppetry. While creating an account if you lose it is not sockpuppetry, creating multiple accounts without saying you lost their password too as you have done for over more than an year is socking. On my previous account at Wikipedia I hadn't used my simultaneous accounts for votes or weight, simply to edit separately. I was still blocked. Jedi3 is not the only account you have used here, Nwalker3 and other accounts that Rupert loup complained about are clearly yours. The only reason you're not blocked is because admins decided they're too stale. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I'm tagging an admin to block Xsaorapa. @BD2412: Xsaorapa has been confirmed to be involved in sockpuppetery and he has used an account Feitora as a sock on Wikiquote. Please block him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xsaorapa: Can you explain these Wikiquote edits made under the username Feitoria? There does not appear to be any disclosure that this was an alternate account. BD2412 T 22:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412:There is a misunderstanding about what I said above: "I have not edited anything on wikiquote with the other account Feitoria and never intended too" I was referring on editing pages. But as I admitted just after that: "If the admins think I deserve sanctions for using another account to do an admin request, I will accept what they decide." So yes, I broke the rules, I should have used my main account in the discussion and not a sock. Xsaorapa (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you edit from two different accounts without acknowledging this, it creates the impression that you intend to deceive the community. This, in turn, raises suspicion with respect to everything else that you do here. BD2412 T 00:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request Jimmy Wales

We have the idiots out to play with Jimmy Wales. Could we please have soft protection added as a minimum. Thanks. sDrewth 01:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done by UDScott. sDrewth 11:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Wikiquote is ongoing on the Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard.

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Politically-motivated and defamatory pages at Wikiquote being auto-linked here? BD2412 T 20:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seem the page was recreated by ip block evasion by choosing another article title. The previous one was Zhu Ming. Matthew hk (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now edit warring over a delete template at Zhu Min. Can we get an edit filter for this? GMGtalk 12:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page deleted and salted, IP blocked for "Edit warring and insulting behavior, including repeatedly calling another editor a rascal". BD2412 T 13:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you reckon the chances are of getting an edit filter for IP + "Zhu" + "Ming"? GMGtalk 13:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether that is something that is possible. BD2412 T 23:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In en-wiki he attacked Min Zhu, Ming Zhu, Ju Ming, Zhu Zhe and many other article title. He actually may pass GNG if dig out some Chinese article for his art work, but his promotional tone and way over self-esteem to add insulting word to admin as well as non-notable material of himself, making really hard to create an actual article for him. Matthew hk (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well Matthew hk, notable or not, I'm not sure it would be a good use of time to create such an article at this point, since it's just going to give him a work-around w:CSD:G5, and provide a space where they are undoubtedly going to bludgeon the created article with spam, and use up even more volunteer attention.
Also ping User:Ningauble, since they seem to be one of the more historically active people on the WQ abuse filter. Maybe they can advise as to feasibility. GMGtalk 14:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt he will use more random article title to spam himself, but seem the content he spammed on wikiquote and wikpedia are more static. Matthew hk (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image vandal

Someone may want to take a look at this. Pretty sure this is an interwiki LTA if I'm not mistaken. GMGtalk 15:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the primary objective of the pages Bitcoin tumbler‎ & Bitcoin mixer to be simply link spam, and believe they probably should be deleted. I am just very briefly checking in, and don’t have time to investigate or argue the matter, as I must be leaving in a few minutes, but thought I would bring up the issue here. ~ Kalki·· 11:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some spam

Please see User:DEVIL_GREGORY_VILLAR_3RD, User:HeribertoPostle, Slim_Patch_-_Straightforward_Technique_To_Lose_10_Pounds_And_More_In_30_Days

Tagged a couple of days ago, but still seems to lurk here. Please delete. Thanks. Leaderboard (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've cleaned them all up (for today). ~ UDScott (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block or protect. Please and thank you. GMGtalk 14:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done - I protected the page and blocked the IP vandalizing it. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone mind taking care of this too, while we're at it? GMGtalk 16:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
24 hours of protection doesn't seem to have done the trick. GMGtalk 14:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This page needs protecting; vandalised again last week. Thank-you. --Fitzwilliam2020 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Drmies

I need someone to revert, semi-protect my talk page (the only people who leave messages for me here are socks), and run CU/block. It's probably someone called WhenDatHotlineBling or something like that. Don't ask me what that means. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency action

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I responded to an IRC request for emergency action for a LTA and did a deletion of a userpage, category and a revision that were vandalized.--HakanIST (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious vandalism

Please revert and block Lemonysplits (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log). ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tegel (talk · contributions) blocked the vandal and took care of most of this; I deleted a couple page creations. ~ Kalki·· 07:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Will someone kindly show this fellow the door. GMGtalk 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP vandal who treats Wikiquote like a toy...

@WikiLubber: IP addresses change frequently in most cases. So you can block them indefinitely, but it doesn't really do any good in blocking the person, and is most likely to just block someone else unintentionally.
If that is the criteria, I recommend my talk page be protected from IPs for at least two months. WikiLubber (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vandalism on my talk page continues on. I recommend my talk page be protected from IPs for an indefinite period of time, lest this occur again. WikiLubber (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VP discussion on About sections of film pages

Anyone care to comment on this discussion? The problem is persisting and expanding. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? The problem continues to grow (see here). Can someone please weigh in? ~ UDScott (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG censoring notable quotes and making unsubstantiated accusations

JzG (talkcontribsglobal editspage movesblock userblock log) has made 0 contributions to Wikiquote other than censoring quotes. I reverted him a couple of times here, but he just keeps removing notable quotes giving false reasons every time. That, to me, is vandalism. (It is certainly edit-warring, at the very least.) Now he seems to be accusing me of being a "JarlaxleArtemis sock" (first time I see that name) with 0 evidence. Isn't his despicable behavior block-worthy? ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative hypothesis: JzG, a 13-year enWP veteran and administrator with over 100,000 edits, so not avandal as such, is removing quotes about political figures sourced form the original statements at fringe websites, in line with the foundation's policy on living individuals.
If Breitbart says something about a politician that is then quoted in a secondary source, that would be a valid inclusion. Quotes on Breitbart attacking living individuals with no independent evidence of significance or importance, not so much.
Would you be happy for me to include quotes to, say, Occupy Democrats calling Donald Trump evil? Wikimedia Foundation resources are not intended to be a dumping ground for random comments by haters. JzG (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a "veteran" Wikipedia admin know better than to me make groundless and defamatory accusations against other users? I mean, can you at least provide evidence that I'm a "JarlaxleArtemis sock" or did you just make that flippant accusation in your false edit summary (as if it were revealed truth) without caring to fact-check? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal on L. Ron Hubbard

See section title. They're removing every quote that doesn't show LRH in a positive light while claiming the references are incorrect. This is false; the references are correct. It's blatant POV pushing. Vermont (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. That page should be semi-protected. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on VP discussion regarding About sections on film pages

Could someone take a look at the discussion found here? I feel that the continued addition of massive sections of quotes from film reviews to be a detriment - sometimes there are more quotes than from the films themselves. And none of these are particularly memorable or provide anything of value. Anyone else agree? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Story series vandalism

This IP is getting on our nerves, adding nonsense quotes to Toy Story articles. I request that this user and all sockpuppets be blocked for a long period of time, and all pages it vandalized be protected for a longer period, because just two weeks will not stop them. WikiLubber (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is clearly evading its block with this IP. Why can we never catch a break from this vandal? I request indefinite protection on all Toy Story articles, all Shrek articles, etc., and no less than a month's worth of blocking for each of these IPs, lest this happen again. WikiLubber (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone please deal with this? Thank you, Vermont (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done (other than one remaining category from a page already in the VFD process - and which needs someone other than me to close it, as I was the nominator). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe needs to be blocked again ASAP

See this and this, etc. – CensoredScribe is turning Wikiquote into a dumping ground for dry academic stuff copied from WP, despite previous warnings. Please stop him! ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this user has again decided to treat our site as a dumping ground for non-notable and unmemorable quotes. I believe harm is being done to the project because of this. Is there support among the other admins? ~ UDScott (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Community Portal redirection kerfuffle

Please see MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#Capitalization_of_the_P_in_Community_Portal, thank you. --Palosirkka (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


It may just be a well meaning younger editor, but basically everything that this IP has done so far needs nuked. This seemed easier than tagging everything individually. GMGtalk 14:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time to unprotect Wikiquote:Wikiquote?

Seven months ago an administrator edit protected WQ:WQ. I made a request to that admin to unprotect the page and, after a lengthy discussion, the admin replied that I should bring the question to this page, which I now do. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping for some thoughts on this. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I see no reason to unprotect it. There are no edits that should be made to this page without discussion, and there is no discussion on the page at this time that appears poised to generate a consensus for a change. BD2412 T 01:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia: "You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred (bold in original). Perhaps the rule is different on Wikiquote? From the Wikiquote policy page info box: Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion. This seems to permit even significant changes without discussion (whether they will survive is another matter). Perhaps the rule is different for WQ:WQ - or should the new rule be that all policy pages are permanently edit restricted? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the rule is different, I would invite you to try editing a Wikipedia policy page such as Wikipedia:About or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, to see whether you get any different of an outcome there then here. BD2412 T 19:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that neither of those pages is permanently edit protected. And here is a recent edit to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons that was (a) not preceded by discussion and (b) has not been reverted. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That example is a formatting change that makes no difference to the content of the page. BD2412 T 22:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So the rule is "except for formatting changes, no edits to policy pages without prior discussion"? If so, would copy editing be another exception? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of fully protected pages on Wikipedia where even copy edits must be requested on the talk page. There is nothing unusual about this. There is not going to end up being an absolute set of rules to which every edit can be reduced. At the end of the day, part of the formulation is that where editors have proved that they can edit sensibly, the community may choose to make them administrators, and sometimes administrators copy edit protected pages because the edits to be made reflect common sense. BD2412 T 05:08, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please elaborate on what you mean by "because the edits to be made reflect common sense"? I'm trying to fit that into the Wikipedia permanent edit protection criteria (described earlier on that page as "Articles with persistent vandalism or edit warring from (auto)confirmed accounts; critical templates & modules"). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I don't see the harm in unprotecting the page. There's currently barely anything there, and so I find it hard to imagine that there isn't probably some type of content that could be uncontroversially added, summarizing widely accepted norms without necessarily needing lengthy prior discussion. Also the edit warring new user (who was, I note, blocked on Wikipedia due to an obviously offense username), doesn't appear to have been active in several months on any project. At any rate, if edit warring resumes, surely re-protection would consume less volunteer time overall than even this discussion, and indef full protection on a project with barely a handful of active admins is less than ideal. GMGtalk 13:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page affects all other pages. Better to keep it protected. "There are no edits that should be made to this page without [...] consensus for a change" -- I agree. (Especially as different accounts with almost no contributions to WQ have recently tried to change its long-standing wording without previous community discussion.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more of a Wikipedian than a Wikiquotian. In Wikipedia the bias is toward not permanently edit protecting pages (and only temporarily protecting pages if blocking an abusive editor proves unsuccessful). A few attempts to change pages - even policy pages with long-standing wording - do not justify permanent edit protection. Is the philosophy of Wikiquote different? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. That said, significant changes to policies should always be discussed on the talk page first (this is true even for policy pages that are not protected). And protection doesn't mean that changes can't be made to it -- if there is community consensus for a change, it will be made. ~ DanielTom (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, best practice is prior discussion regarding "significant" proposed changes. As the info box for other WQ policy pages (none of which are permanently edit protected) says: "Please do not make significant changes to this page without prior discussion." But does that principle support a permanent edit protection for WQ:WQ? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiquote home page says "Welcome to Wikiquote, the free quote compendium that anyone can edit." Shouldn't the question be whether there is any reason to protect the page (preventing anyone from editing) rather than the other way around? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind, the quote compendium is the collection of pages containing quotes. Aside from a very small number of highly volatile pages, those pages are indeed freely editable. Policy pages are not part of "the free quote compendium that anyone can edit", just as they are not part of Wikipedia's body of articles, Wiktionary's body of entries, or Wikisource's body of source texts. BD2412 T 23:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one way or another, indef fully protecting policy pages is a pretty major break from normal procedures on other projects. Looks like en.WP only has 116 fully protected project pages, most of which are redirects, template subpages, marked historical, or have legal implications. Commons only has 31 and they're all deleted pages. Wikidata only has 12. In comparison, WQ has 118. Most of those are QOTD. WQ:WQ appears to be the only one that is a major policy page, other than WQ:VAN, which is currently an essay.
At the same time, Wikiquote:Protection policy (never actually approved as a policy, but the closet things we have) specifically states that protection of a page due to an edit war should be temporary. GMGtalk 13:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you have noted, most fully protected pages in Wikiquote space are QOTD pages, which are most comparable to DYK template pages on Wikipedia. Wikiquote only has about 20 fully protected pages that are general project space pages, which does not seem at all out of bounds. Of course, there are plenty of permanently protected pages on all of the projects, particularly with respect to sensitive templates. BD2412 T 20:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some of the full protected stuff, I'm not entirely sure why it exists at all (e.g., [46] [47] [48] [49]). Other than that, yeah, it's a little awkward when a project doesn't have any protection policy at all. But like I said, the closest thing WQ has indicates that protections for edit warring should be temporary, and of the things that are protected, it looks like the only major policy page is WQ:WQ. GMGtalk 20:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative approach to whether to unprotect Wikiquote:Wikiquote?

The discussion above seems to have petered out, with one administrator in favor and one against. So I propose another way to look at the issue:
I think we all agree that substantial changes to policy pages should not occur without consensus. Converting WQ:WQ from unprotected to permanently protected is a substantial change. The discussion above did not reach a consensus. Accordingly, the page should revert to unprotected, its condition from just before the controversial change took place. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only other administrator who has participated in the discussion above is Kalki (neither DanielTom nor GreenMeansGo are administrators on this project, although all opinions are welcome in this discussion). BD2412 T 17:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Humble apologies. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that we really ought to be weighting opinions based on anything other than strength of their rationale, but I do think it should be fairly uncontroversial that we would have saved overall community time here by just unprotecting when requested, and reprotecting if disruption resumed. That's the difference between a couple clicks and ~1,400 words of debate. But I'm a hopeless pragmatist, so take that or leave it as you will. GMGtalk 17:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with what GreenMeansGo has written - I'm not quite sure why this is still being debated. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that there are about 1% as many administrators on this project as there are on Wikipedia, meaning that we often have a much narrower bandwidth to deal with disruption when it happens. However, if you want to unprotect the page, you have that authority. BD2412 T 18:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful IP

Someone kindly show this school IP the door. Incidentally, already blocked on Wikipedia for a year. GMGtalk 19:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this IP again. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect article

There is an IP removing quotes that are sourced, claiming that they aren't verified. I believe the IP to be a person known to the subject who is trying to take out things that the subject has actually said. The article is Jonathan Mitchell. TLPG (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but according to WQ:NQUOTE, those quotes and sources are unreliable. Enjoy your block. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:2D09:BD4B:826A:C7BB 16:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above message demonstrates the need for the article to be protected. TLPG (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How? You need to explain why you think this. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:C970:645E:B158:9CA4 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have an account and you aren't using it - that's how. You are hiding your identity from others (I know who you are) and it's time that stopped. Own what you say. TLPG (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, falsely accusing me of having an account with no evidence, this makes you look suspicious 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your IP resolves to the hometown of a known user and the edits are the same. TLPG (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that I must be that "known user" because it says we might be in the same hometown? Which edits are the same? What are you talking about? You make no sense whatsoever. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Way to avoid the overwhelming evidence against you. You did this on Wikipedia as well. Promoting Mitchell as the ideal source on Autism when he isn't as the quotes I added prove. You're trying to delete stuff that makes him look bad - every time without fail. Under your account and now, both here and on WP. TLPG (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TLPG keeps vandalizing article

User:TLPG wilfully fails to follow WQ:NQUOTE on the Jonathan Mitchell article. His edits are a means of attack. His page has already been deleted twice for spamming [50]. He has made the same spam edits at [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], and [57]

Please take appropriate action

2606:5580:30C:7F9E:2D09:BD4B:826A:C7BB 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the source this IP claims is unreliable is Jonathan Mitchell's own blog. WikiLubber (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, this IP is the article's creator not logged in and he is seeking to prevent balance in the article. He needs to be forced to use his account and protecting the article (as stated in the previous section) would achieve this. TLPG (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But TLPG's quote selection is not notable at all. Also, I believe that WikiLubber is a sock of TLPG. Edit: I opened an investigation [58]
Both have had their userpages deleted multiple times, and both are known to spam the Wikis multiple times.
Also, both don't provide sufficient evidence for their arguments against me, and both have spammed with the same sentence, which seems highly suspicious. On, TLPG seems to instantly give support to WikiLubber as an admin, even though he might not know WikiLubber wants to be an admin. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:C970:645E:B158:9CA4 23:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of yours are notable either just by the way. You are a vandal and you aren't using your account so you are socking as well. All you are about is making sure Mitchell's views are promoted as correct and I am providing balance so show tha6t he is not the angel you are promoting him to be. Leave the quotes there. Mitchell said them and show him to be who he really is. It;s a simple choice. Either it all stays - or it all goes. Oh and I never created a user page and I am not spamming. TLPG (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"you aren't using your account" I have no idea what you are talking about, I never had an account on this site, and assuming this only makes you look more suspicious. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are lying and I know you are lying. TLPG (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I see that your report to Wikipedia (which I have NEVER edited on as can be seen) got you a week long block. TLPG (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I got blocked, I just didn't understand why my report was deleted and thought I should re-create it to get a better answer. That's all. Hopefully I am allowed to post through this IP : ) 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You got blocked because your report was totally failing in content and evidence. TLPG (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, didn't know that was a reason, sorry 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't import English Wikipedia conflicts onto other projects. It's generally considered bad form. Other than that, if we really need an outside opinion, I would tend toward excluding the quotes, unless they've been quoted in some secondary source. Person-A saying something that Person-A said isn't really "being quoted in", that's just "being said". If we want to demonstrate that the quotes are quotable, then we should find somewhere where they're actually quoted. GMGtalk 18:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that I was simply responding to the IP's comments. Sorry if that was out of turn.
On what you said otherwise, all the quotes have been used on secondary sources as indicated with one of them linking to where the subject actually said them himself. I have challenged the IP to present their argument on the talk page, and so far nothing. TLPG (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The site appears to be simply "some blog" by "some dude" dedicated to ranting about how this guy he doesn't like is a bitch, a coward, and an idiot. That's not a secondary source for our purposes and not at all the type of source we ought to be using for contentious material about living persons, or really for any reason whatsoever. Moreover, per WQ:NQUOTE, we specifically should not be including content from blogs and comments on online forums, when all these appear to be are online comments from a blog posted on another blog. GMGtalk 14:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This part of the conversation should be taking place on the talk page of the article shouldn't it? TLPG (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but Wikiquote is such a comparatively tight community I'm not sure it does any real harm to be having it here, since here we are. GMGtalk 22:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that I already started a discussion about what has been IDed as a content dispute on the talk page of the article before you commented here. The IP was challenged to be involved there as well (no sign of him yet). TLPG (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone want to weigh in on the fact that TLPG and their obvious socks have unilaterally decided to redirect the article? Does this noticeboard serve any purpose? GMGtalk 03:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this for the first time a couple of days ago and honestly didn't want to get involved--I had hoped it would resolve itself. What is your proposal, User:GreenMeansGo? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have reverted the redirection as an out-of-process deletion. GMG, you're interested in standing for adminship here, I would definitely support you in that effort. BD2412 T 04:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: It's not a deletion. It's a redirect. If it was a deletion I wouldn't have added the quotes to the Autism article. The redirect is for the article's creator to contest. I therefore assert that the redirect isn't out of process - unless redirects aren't allowed here. I'll wait for an answer here before I re-establish the redirect. Oh, and GMG, please revoke your sock accusation as that is a false statement that I repudiate unreservedly. You need proof. TLPG (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't particularly want to get involved in the situation either, but it didn't look like anyone else was. And no, I won't be withdrawing my accusations of sock puppetry, because it is embarrassingly obvious. Please stick to one account and save us the trouble. GMGtalk 11:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You will withdraw it because it is a blatant lie that I absolutely repudiate AGAIN!! I do not, and never have accepted being lied about and I'm not about to start. It is NOT obvious at all. You are just pushing your own biased opinion with no foundation whatsoever! TLPG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the issue that we have housed quotes from an attack blog on a BLP for the last two years. Other than adopting WQ:BLP as an official policy (which we should definitely do, and which the Foundation recommends all local projects do), we should remove poorly sourced content on living persons, as it exposes individual editors, and the project, and the Foundation to potential legal action. If someone wants to edit war over poorly sourced contentious material regarding living persons, then we should show them the door. GMGtalk 11:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We've resolved that now - but for the record it was not poorly sourced, because the origin of the quotes was linked and verified - Mitchell's own blog. And that's all I'm going to say about that. (Talking of notable quotes!) TLPG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLPG, removing all content from a page, including the introductory material and corresponding links to the Wikipedia article, is functionally deletion of that page, even if the quotes are moved elsewhere. I find no consensus for this radical change to the nature of the page, and since your edit has been reverted, it is incumbent upon you to generate a consensus before attempting to "re-establish the redirect". BD2412 T 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Point taken. I'll go and do a deletion instead. Not straight away though because I want to work on the wording to make sure I don't miss anything and I do have a life off Wiki after all! TLPG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And done. TLPG (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]