Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/035

Vandalism by 185.50.25.24

IP is vandalizing many pages. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Will someone kindly also show this IP the door? GMGtalk 14:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Apparently this fellow is going on a bit of an all caps tirade. Not sure their current contributions are terribly constructive. GMGtalk 19:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends vandals...

...are at it again. Apparently, protecting each article for six months was not going to stop them. I request each article (including The Railway Series, The Adventure Begins, etc.) be protected for no less than a year, and that all these vandals be blocked for no less than that same time period, lest they vandalize other pages. WikiLubber (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@WikiLubber: Reviewing briefly, is the vandalism only inserting empty sections for television show episodes? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
And changing quotes to the wrong ones. The same reasons they were protected the last time. WikiLubber (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. This is a little stale now, so please post again if you see more vandalism and I will respond. Thanks and sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Their vandalism continues. I keep telling them to stop, but they refuse to even reply. WikiLubber (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have extended the protection for all season pages for one year. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. WikiLubber (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No, thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal 68.201.9.142

It is changing the release years of film articles without explanation. I request all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than six months and the IP be blocked for no less than that same time period. WikiLubber (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done Block done. The pages don't seem like vandalism magnets at the moment, so I don't see a need to protect the pages. Please update if I am mistaken.Justin (koavf)TCM 00:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be Vandalism, please block: 2001:8003:4163:AD00:4837:9243:6943:2749

  • This unknown individual with no visible track record at wikiquotes, has twice deleted valid posts, without just cause.
  • 20:28, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,133‎ Nicolás Maduro ‎ Undo revision 2545711 by Om777om (talk) current Tag: Undo
  • 20:28, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,171‎ Venezuela ‎ Undo revision 2545712 by Om777om (talk) current Tag: Undo
  • 20:24, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,133‎ Nicolás Maduro ‎ Undo revision 2545709 by Om777om (talk) Tag: Undo
  • 20:22, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,171‎ Venezuela ‎ Undo revision 2545700 by Om777om (talk) white supremacy in Venezuela? La la land Tag: Undo

Also a post on Mainstream media, but i'm dropping that one anyway. Please block him to prevent further mischief. Om777om (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The cause is that your quote is nonsense as I wrote in the edit description. White supremacy is Venezuela? That's why you think Maduro's reign is imploding? --2001:8003:4163:AD00:A57F:89CD:F59:78D4 20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi 2001:8003:4163:AD00:A57F:89CD:F59:78D4 Please see:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Policies_and_guidelines - here we are encouraged to respect each other, despite different views. We are not supposed to delete other people's valid posts, just because we disagree with them. That is vandalism. When your views differ from views expressed by notable authors on posts here, please either ignore them, or consider finding notable authors & posting their quotes on the pages in question. Vandalising pages by deleting the work of others is not civil. Thank you. Om777om (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Note that WQ:VANDALISM has a specific meaning on Wikimedia projects, and does not include any good faith effort to improve the project, even if misguided. GMGtalk 20:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • GMG: Thank you for sharing that information.Om777om (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I my own opinion (others might disagree) the best way to deal with a content dispute is to demonstrate that the quote meets WQ:NQUOTE 1:1, by showing that it has itself been widely quoted by other sources, and not just taken from the original source directly. If it hasn't then it may not meet this criteria. GMGtalk 00:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In many cases for the sake of wikipedia's integrity & the value to the public, i would definitely suggest going beyond the first part 1.1 into the other aspects of the criteria 1.2, 2.1 & 2.2, for many reasons including the fact that very often some vital parts of a story are covered up by anti-democracy forces in power who do not want the people to know the truth.
  • 1.1 The quote has been widely quoted,
  • 1.2 The quote tells the audience something new and interesting about the article topic.
  • 2. Criteria for notability of sources may include:
  • 2.1 The quote is from a notable person
  • 2.2 The quote is from an expert on the article topic and appears in a notable publication....
    • IMO, We in the USA swim in a sea of lies, where the truth often sounds stranger than fiction (like nonsense), & the blind lead the blind, but that too will pass. Thanks again for your great work. Om777om (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but the purpose of the project is to provide a lasting educational resource. Like Wikipedia or Wikisource, Wikiquote is agnostic to political trends, and it's purpose is not to tip that scale in one direction or the other. In my own opinion (again, others may disagree) if a quote hasn't actually been quoted, then it isn't a quote; it's just a passage. And our purpose is to provide quotable quotes which are demonstrably quotable because they have been quoted. GMGtalk 02:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalizing my talk page...

My talk page was vandalized by the same Toy Story vandal. I request indefinite protection, lest this occur again. WikiLubber (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected and blocked for a short term. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon IP

I'm not going to block them, because I reverted them, so I might be involved, but this IP seems to be engaged in a long term campaign about these arbitrary cartoons and whether they are done or not, and they seem to be done. Random pings: User:koavf, User:UDScott. GMGtalk 02:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: You should feel empowered to at least temporarily block someone who writes something like this. That kind of language is inappropriate and it isn't a matter of not knowing our rules or a misunderstanding about a fact like a show being canceled or not. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you need to worry about being involved when they write personal attacks like this and again in edit summaries. jni (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I also wanted to make I'm just not missing something regarding the factual accuracy of the dispute. I don't really deal with pop culture topics. GMGtalk 11:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the smaller community of active admins here, we are a bit looser on "involved" concerns. BD2412 T 04:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal 96.4.107.9 strikes again

This edit proves it's a blatant vandal. WikiLubber (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Antichristos/Attractor321 apparently at work here again

I was just checking in briefly and noticed that the recent edit patterns of 7jtyghe (talk · contributions) closely correspond with those of the globally blocked cross-wiki abuser Antichristos who is believed to have operated on this and other wikis through many aliases including Attractor321 (talk · contributions), Ufj7v (talk · contributions), and probably at least a few others. ~ Kalki·· 15:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked based on behavioral evidence. See also evidence at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Antichristos/Archive. GMGtalk 17:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Also User:O47ftbvk, just for the record, in case this at some point needs a CU. GMGtalk 14:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism 207.99.213.50

Ip : 207.99.213.50
Vandalism Reason : mass blanking. Tomybrz Bip Bip 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 N Not Done I was watching this about 15 minutes after it ended, looking to see if it would continue. But it has at this point been about an hour. So either the user has stopped, or they've jumped IP addresses. Having said that, thank you very much for helping us fight vandalism. You're efforts are greatly appreciated. GMGtalk 23:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by 73.244.34.177

Particularly on Pocahontas (1995 film). Makes the same edits, exceeding the limit on quotes and unnecessary emphasis. I request this vandal be blocked and that all the pages it vandalized be protected, all for no less than a year. WikiLubber (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really deal with pop culture on any project. But my daughter has watched Pocahontas enough that I can fairly well say the IP looks like they were having a go at trying to reproduce the script of the movie nearly in its entirety. Obviously we can't have that. Feel free to ping me if they return and go right back to it, or if they start again on another IP, and we can look to see if the article protection would be more effective than blocking. GMGtalk 19:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Page protection of User talk:Tegel

Hi. Consider semi-protection of my talk page due to vandalism. Thanks. -- Tegel (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Tegel  Y Done I started with six months, but given how long-term the vandalism is, if you want that extended to indef just let me know. GMGtalk 20:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wikiquote admins/crats. You may want to consider removing Abramsky as an administrator as he is a globally banned user and currently locked. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

As an office action no less, pinging User:UDScott and User:BD2412. GMGtalk 01:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
And as soon as I post this I remember that crats can't remove the bit on this project. So support a vote of no confidence, to request that stewards remove the bit. GMGtalk 01:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I also support removing the globally banned user. With tree supports, you may now call for a Votes of confidence. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal 98.214.101.235‎...

...is at it again, still vandalizing Alvin and the Chipmunks (1983 TV series), claiming it was a Cartoon Network series. It was dead wrong, as usual, because Cartoon Network did not exist even when this animated series ended in 1990. The series premiered on NBC and no other network. I request this IP be duly blocked and the page be protected for no less than a year. WikiLubber (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Blocked two weeks by Koavf. GMGtalk 12:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

When someone gets a chance, can an uninvolved admin close this VfD? The content on Commons has already been deleted, and the Wikidata item is just wating on this discussion to be closed. GMGtalk 12:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Johnnnnnnnn

Could an admin please block Special:Contribs/Johnnnnnnnn? Vandalizing Wikiquote since October 2018. Thanks, --MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Already  Y Done GMGtalk 14:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Blatant Pro-Russian POV pusher

Hi everyone. The user Om777om has been pushing a strong pro-Russian, anti-American agenda on various articles on the English Wikiquote that I wanted to bring to your attention. Here's a few examples:

  • Created Charter of the United Nations. Insofar, all 7 quotes added to this page pertain to alleged violations of the charter by the United States, all but one from fringe sources. Thankfully, w:WP:RS/N sheds light as to the validity of the websites that these quites are derived from. Four of the quotes are from Global Research, a conspiracy website shown as such by both editorial consensus and NATO. One quote is from Sputnik News; that bias is self-explanatory, and another is a direct quote from Nicolas Maduro, where the user in question purposefully bolded the part saying the U.S. violated the charter. The final quote is from CounterPunch; see w:CounterPunch#Russian_disinformation.
  • Created Foreign policy of the United States. Ten of the eleven quotes are anti-US, and from modern fringe sources. The page should be quotes about topics like the Monroe Doctrine, not that the "US and its allied neocolonial powers will forever continue to get away with mass murder and genocide." Most of the quotes are from Global Research, which I addressed in the last bullet. A few are from The Unz Review, referred to by the ADL as an "outlet for certain writers to attack Israel and Jews". One quote is from the BBC, which selectively picks parts of their profile on the U.S. to push their POV.
  • Added a strongly anti-Israel quote to Benjamin Netanyahu from fringe source The Unz Review. (diff)
  • They added many similar quotes to Israel, mostly not even focusing on Israel and simply bad things about Jews. Most additions are from The Unz Review, CounterPunch, or similar outlets.
  • They have been adding pro-Venezuela quotes to Venezuela since December 2018. See the history of the article. I did a CTRL+F for Guaidó, and it only mentions him in quotes such as, "Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington’s elite regime change trainers" (first result).
  • There are many similar additions to many articles which has been continuing, editing almost every day, since their first edit on November 1, 2018. I could go through them all, but it would take a lot of time. I believe the above, which is their more recent additions, accurately characterize why they're editing.

I recommend an indefinite block, as they're here only to push a political point of view, the deletion (or blanking of the quotes section) of all created articles except for Philip Giraldi, who wrote a few of those fringe articles from Global Research, and the removal of all political-related quotes. I can assist in the cleanup if consensus is to remove the politically-charged additions. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment, Ha! I was surprised when I saw his edit on cvn logs, I thought he was an established user, so I was kind of wondering if I should undo this users edit or not.Aldnonymous (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It is difficult to find very many, if any substantive edits by this user that are not overtly politically hyper-partisan, even on pages otherwise unrelated to politics. This is not the first time the issue has been raised (e.g., [1], [2], [3] - Courtesy pings for @Ningauble: and @Kalki:). Their responses (e.g., [4], [5], [6]) seem to indicate that they see the issue primarily as one of righting great wrongs rather than trying to build a lasting educational resource. I do not believe the solution is, as they suggest on Talk:Charter of the United Nations, that if we want a neutral article, then someone needs to balance their own hyper-partisan content with contrary hyper-partisan content, because the purpose of this project is not to house hyper-partisan content. I'm inclined to say rather that if they cannot contribute to article in a way that is not overt political advocacy, then they need to stop contributing. GMGtalk 13:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I worry that "hyper-partisanship" is a slippery slope. It sounds like most, if not all of this editor's additions run afoul of WQ:Q and the editor can be blocked for that reason.

EphFan (talk · contributions) should probably be blocked here

Curious as to the character of the editor who sought to create a page devoted to the mass murderer who perpetrated the Christchurch mosque shootings, I did a lookup of the global accounts of EphFan (talk · contributions) and at Wikipedia I found a permanent block which noted :"This account is a sock puppet of Tyciol (talk · contribs · logs), and it has been blocked indefinitely", and at User:Tyciol one finds: "This user account has been locked across all Wikimedia projects." ~ Kalki·· 23:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Kalki, EphFan was globally locked on 18 March. But I'd say that if we find socks here of globally banned users who have been confirmed by CUs on another project, we can probably go ahead and block locally and report to stewards without the need for prior discussion. GMGtalk 12:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism & username

Special:Contributions/Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee should be probably indef'd per vandalism and username. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

This user has now been blocked. ~ Kalki·· 10:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

LTA/Vandalism

Please see Special:Contribs/165.120.199.20. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disregard, globally blocked. Vermont (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

VfD closing

Dear administrators, please close this VfD. I would like to close its item's RfD on Wikidata. Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Bencemac, now closed by User:Ningauble. GMGtalk 12:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Under IPs 186.11.15.25 and 186.11.111.153 a handful of offensive edits were made to the entire Castlevania: Symphony of the Night page. Was unable to undo all of them, as I'm too new an account. --Aetropos (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aetropos: Thanks for this. Protection, block, suppressed edits, etc. Very helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Need clarification about User name policy

Wikiquote:Username policy

I need clarification in following:

"Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah") are prohibited. In addition, usernames that invoke the name of a religious figure or religion are prohibited should they be distasteful, provoke or promote intolerance, are blatantly disrespectful of the religion, or promote the ideology that one religion is superior to others (e.g. "ChristOnly", etc.). Usernames that are clearly expressions of faith are discouraged, however considered allowed unless disruptive. Should a username not be clear as to the motive, it may be reviewed."

Can i continue ?If any admin respond to me , i will ask the question

(Kromiom (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC))

Are there religious connotations to "Kromiom" or "chromium"??? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_Dea

Bona Dea ([bɔ.na ˈde.a] 'Good Goddess') was a goddess in ancient Roman religion. She was associated with chastity and fertility in Roman women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_Dea

"Bonadea" user name is against user name policy .Any one can take this god name for user name ?

(Kromiom (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

While I'm sure there are some persons who claim to be practitioners of Roman reconstructionist pagan religion, there is no actual community of Roman pagans nor has there been for several centuries. The goal of the policy is to ensure that existing religious sensibilities aren't infringed upon and that fights don't emerge because of shock names. I don't know that anyone would be offended by this name, so I don't think it meets the spirit of the rule. I'm happy to read others' thoughts, tho. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=893848103

bot-flagged "User name Violation". Admin confirmed that is user name violation. (Kromiom (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)) (Kromiom (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

I don't see how "admin confirmed user name violation". Also please note that Wikiquote, Simple and Wikipedia are three different projects and might have differences in username policies. By common sense it is not a problem if someone's username resembles some obscure deity nobody worships anymore or has never heard about. Mankind names asteroids and who knows what objects after ancient Greek or Roman gods, and that is not a problem in the slightest. jni (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Also that vandalism report is about non-existent user. This is just total waste of time. jni (talk) 09:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jni you are absolutely correct.

In Wikipedia Bot flagged following way : Commented about an user B0nadea.

B0nadea is a God of Roman religion.Do not use the name of a political, military or religious figure or event (including real people).Do not choose something that might be offensive. Your user name should not suggest that you hold any particular political, religious or other belief.

No need to continue this discussion more

Kromiom (talk) 09:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Protection

I recommend this page be protected from these IP vandals for at no less than a year. I tire of the vandals inexplicably removing our vandalism reports. They should understand that Wikiquote is not the place for their juvenile games. WikiLubber (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

(TISTORID (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC))

Change my user name

Vandalism

Please block 74.130.187.74. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Several vandals afoot...

Aside from the Toy Story/Shrek vandal, we have 68.201.9.142, 86.179.83.52‎, Stopthebuyers, Wewillbuythisplace, etc.

68.201.9.142-- Absolute nonsense, changing certain networks to PBS without explanation.
86.179.83.52‎, Stopthebuyers, Wewillbuythisplace-- Redoing vandalism, unlawfully bullying Tegel, spamming, trying to defend other vandals, the works. I request all of these users be blocked infinitely and the pages they vandalized be protected indefinitely, as well as my talk page, GreenMeansGo's talk page, etc. (the talk pages need indefinite protection, because short-term protection will not stop the vandals). WikiLubber (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Between User:GreenMeansGo and myself, it looks like they are blocked. Can you point out any further users needing blocks or diffs needing reversion? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
86.180.153.142 has joined the vandalism squadron. But my talk page should be protected, as well, indefinitely. I know these vandals will not stop unless what they vandalize is protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 13:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
One month of protection is not enough. One year at least should suffice. WikiLubber (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should only let confirmed users edit here. Letting IPs at it is just asking for trouble. WikiLubber (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.
  • I have long said so on my user page, but there is no consensus for it. Even the fearless leader Jimbo holds it so important to let people freely edit without needing to sign in first, that it is worth forcing us to either waste boundless time and effort cleaning up utter nonsense and deliberate vandalism or else just accept that the wiki is irrevocably and irredeemably full of crap. This is meta-policy at the highest level of the organization, and is extremely unlikely to change. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
With all this vandalism, we may have to convince him to consider otherwise. Besides, several Wikia/Fandom sites have adopted such policies. I do not see why this one should not. WikiLubber (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not difficult to become a registered editorǃ--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not support a blanket ban on anon IP editing here or anywhere on the Wikimedia projects, but I can accept that long term protection of pages from anon edits for 6 months or a year should be liberally used where disruptive edits are endemic, and protection of pages from anon editing for a month or less should probably be applied rather casually after even minor disruptions. I know that in recent years I have not always had enough time or presence to examine some of the more extensive incidents of subtle or overt vandalism which have been occurring, and regarding many pages I do not have enough direct knowledge to make assessments on some of the dubious edits, and thus I am often not inclined to immediately block IPs even short term without clearly overt vandalism. Long term protection of many of the targeted pages from anon editing for up to a year is something I already can and do readily accept as a practical measure, and even permanent protection in such ways is something I probably can also accept as appropriate on some pages. ~ Kalki·· 01:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
If that is the criteria, then I say at least year should suffice for pages that are being vandalized by repetitive major disruptions such as the Toy Story/Shrek vandals who continuously add non-existent quotes. But should that occur again after the protection expires, I recommend no less than double the prior protection. WikiLubber (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • What projects have disabled anonymous editing entirely? Surely none of the larger ones? Enwiki, dewiki, frwiki, data, meta, commons...none of these have done so as far as I am aware. GMGtalk 12:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
    Requiring IPs to always write edit summaries to facilitate their edits, rejected on Chinese Wikipedia many years ago, may be better than entirely disabling anonymous editing that I know of no project doing so.--Jusjih (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The copyright-violating IP vandal known as 73.244.34.177 is at it again. I recommend it be blocked indefinitely. A definite blocking will not stop this vandal. WikiLubber (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

More vandals about...

Aside from those/it who keep trolling admins (someone call the right people so they/it will stop for good), many with biased edits in Finding Nemo, one with unnecessary "family" subsections in Lethal Weapon 4 (among other projects), etc. I request those pages be protected indefinitely, and all vandals involved blocked. WikiLubber (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that some abuse filters can be introduced. Like preventing new users from editing others' user page, enabling block function of thr filter when new user reverting on the specific talk pages and adding bad words.--94rain (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The Lethal Weapon 4 edits are certainly malformed but not exactly vandalism. It seems like the IP was trying to be helpful. The Finding Nemo ones are pretty inscrutable--they are bad English but also clearly not proper quotations. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The edits in the Lethal Weapon franchise are anything but helpful. WikiLubber (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Please re-read what I wrote. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And now, the bias troll is taking its actions out on The Fox and the Hound, among other films. WikiLubber (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest sysops introduce this filter from enWP to prevent that talk page troll. Also, the block function of the filter can be enabled so that if the new wikitext of reverts contains some obvious vandal words, blocks can be performed by the filter(Or only limited to specific talk pages). --94rain (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Another IP vandal who refuses to repent...

73.37.237.49‎ constantly adds incomplete, over-emphasized, and general all-around vandalism quotes (as well as empty subsections), and constantly goes over the quote limitation on numerous pages. WikiLubber (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocked user

I have indefinitely blocked User:Om777om. There have been myriad problems with this user's contributions, raised by a multitude of other editors, and at least one and two warnings that they would be blocked if they continue. If any other administrator feels that they show any indication of what has been problematic with their contributions, and they will address the issues, feel free to unblock without consulting me. If anyone else takes issues, feel free to let me know here or on my talk page. GMGtalk 00:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed and noted some problems or irritations with some of this editor's edits, and contended about some of them, and largely without comment noted other's arguments and interest in blocking him, but though I have not closely followed most of this editor's edits, nor noted many of the problems with some of them which I have noticed, which others may have noticed or not, I believe that an indefinite block at this time is probably excessive and unwarranted. I recognize that resolving some of many complex issues in some of the edits and contentions about them could be time consuming and problematic, and honestly I myself have not had a great deal of time to attend to such things lately, but simply believe such measures as an indefinite block are at this time to be too drastic and abrupt.
I have not even bother responding to some of the rather ridiculous and unwarranted assessments about my character and assertions which this editor provided, some time ago, after I made a few objections or comments regarding many of his edits, and though I have noted a tendency for at times engaging in what I consider to be rather ill-considered histrionics, exaggerations and hyperbole, and the promotion of such, I actually do not believe the behaviors I have thus far observed actually warrant a permanent block. ~ Kalki·· 00:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC) + tweaks
The intention is not necessarily that they remain blocked permanently, but that they do not need to edit further until they understand the problems that have been raised, and make it a point to do differently. It is not okay for several of our most active editors to raise multiple concerns, and the response be "ridiculous and unwarranted assessments" of their character and continuing with exactly the same problematic behavior regardless. GMGtalk 01:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Rescuers Down Under, Beauty and the Beast (1991), Hero of the Rails, and An Extremely Goofy Movie...

...are all in danger of vandalism. I request all vandals be blocked indefinitely and all of these articles be protected for no less than one year. WikiLubber (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and the same goes for The Jungle Book 2, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (both films), etc. These vandals refuse to listen to our warnings and provide non-constructive edit summaries (example: A year number). I still think Wikiquote should only allow users with actual accounts. The way it is now only opens the door for vandals wider (whereas users with accounts-- Vandalism may drop at least 50%). WikiLubber (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Editwar notification

Hi admins, i've noticed an editwar going on on Immigration to the United States. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Protected for a week by User:Ningauble. Disruption doesn't seem to have resumed. GMGtalk 21:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal User:98.214.101.235...

It constantly adds the category "Cartoon Network shows" to television series that never originally aired on Cartoon Network (some were even cancelled BEFORE Cartoon Network even existed; some never even aired reruns on that network!; it even replaced true information with false information). I request this user be blocked indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@WikiLubber: Thanks for this. Please include links in your reports in the future to make it easier for someone to address. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
That IP just will not stop.
It constantly adds the category: "American TV shows" to anime series (none of which were ever made in America)! What is going on in that IP's head?!
I request it be blocked for no less than a year. WikiLubber (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
One week is not enough for a blatant vandal who has had the same IP for nearly a year. One year or more should suffice. WikiLubber (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
This block could raised next time, and when things proceed you might get it your way. -- Mdd (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:GreenMeansGo

Hi. Consider semi-protecting User talk:GreenMeansGo due to ongoing vandalism. -- Tegel (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't protected it because I was trying to keep it open for any legit IPs. But if it's posing a burden on the SWM team, then that's fine. GMGtalk 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

LTA 71.218.26.8 + Spambot

Please block User:71.218.26.8 (SWMT)--WikiBayer (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Spambot: User:WileyFollmer903 --WikiBayer (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Please, semi-protect User talk:IanDBeacon. Thanks, --Hasley (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done for a longer period of time. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Please block LTA

86.148.237.215 (talk · contributions) --WikiBayer (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Block 195.11.204.67

Please, block Special:Contribs/195.11.204.67, vandalism --Martin Urbanec (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Can someone semi-protect my talk page?. Thanks, Hasley (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Your talk page has now been semi-protected. ~ Kalki·· 23:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
This epidemic of IP trolls has gone on long enough. Somehow, we have to rally to get Wikiquote to only allow registered users to edit. Plus, we need to report these IPs to the proper authorities so as to relieve them of their privileges permanently. WikiLubber (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Not all IP edits are bad (although they do seem to have a particular affinity for trolling WikiQuote). Perhaps we should implement a site-wide system of pending revisions for IPs. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That would work. WikiLubber (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

86.145.69.66

Please block LTA 86.145.69.66 (talk · contributions) --WikiBayer (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This IP, recently one used by an infantile troll, has been blocked. ~ Kalki·· 10:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

86.179.176.83

86.179.176.83 (talk · contributions) Vandalism. --Xiplus (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Already  Y Done. GMGtalk 16:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

See [7] --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Already  Y Done. GMGtalk 16:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

We could use more participation here generally, but also more admins closing discussions. The oldest discussion has now been there for almost 20 months. I would close some of the older ones myself, but I've participated in a great deal of them already. GMGtalk 16:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please block LTA 86.179.205.202 (talk · contributions) --WikiBayer (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please block user 86.173.2.17 (talk · contributions) ---WikiBayer (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

LTA

Please block LTA ASPIZZA (talk · contributions) ---WikiBayer (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Any admins here?

Could an admin attend to the speedy deletion of Yash gawli, on which IP socks have been edit-warring to remove the speedy template for a week now ([8],[9],[10],[11]). The page is self-promotion spam by Yash Gawli, who, along with over twenty socks, is globally locked for the aforementioned self-promotion. Elcobbola (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

LTA

Monsters, Inc. is under attack from vandals who add non-existent lines by non-existent characters. I request that page be protected for no less than a year (and all other Pixar films, lest that vandal carry its vandalism over to any of them). WikiLubber (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

One week's worth of protection on that one article is not going to stop that vandal. One year on each Pixar article should suffice. WikiLubber (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree, as we've had to have progressively longer blocks on this page to combat vandalism - I've extended the block. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Toy Story 3 is now under attack by the same Toy Story 2 vandal. Like I said, all Pixar films should be protected for at least a year. We cannot take any chances that this unrepentant vandal continues its constant misbehavior.
And we need to do something to get it to stop permanently, because page protection and blocking the vandal will not stop it, and I grow weary of undoing its vandalism repeatedly (that vandal undoing its own vandalism does not take away its misbehavior, since it should not have been vandalizing in the first place). WikiLubber (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Y Done Unfortunately, it doesn't look like range blocking is an option. We could look at a targeted edit filter, but I am not technically competent enough to work with edit filters. GMGtalk 14:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Until we find someone who does, we cannot let that vandal go unpunished, considering it had been vandalizing for over a year without ever answering. WikiLubber (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
[redacted per w:WP:DENY]
Vandalism is not funny. WikiLubber (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Now the Monsters, Inc. vandal is taking its vandalism out on Finding Nemo. Like I said before, all Pixar films should be under serious protection. WikiLubber (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Revision deletion needed

Please delete Special:Permalink/2662943 - its a copyright violation. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 05:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Filter update

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/28

I've been conferencing a bit off-wiki to try to get a little better at edit filters. This is a filter that has been imported from another project to target a specific xwiki vandal (sysop only view). Please review and disable if it causes any problems. Pinging especially @Koavf: who has a little bit of experience in this area. GMGtalk 14:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I've only seen one spate of edits that would trip this filter. Have you seen more? —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Without getting into the specifics too much in a public forum, no, its not a major pressing issue on this project at the time, but it will occasionally be an issue as the vandal is highly cross-wiki, and it was a pre-made filter that all we had to do was import for free. GMGtalk 15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I like it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The filter is specific enough to avoid collateral damage. It was a big spate on Monday, so I hope the filter deters a repetition. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
And it's already been relevant. Thanks GMG. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

LTA

Please protect Toy Story 2 indefinitely and find a way to stop that IP vandal's nonsense permanently. WikiLubber (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I've protected the page again. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that IP vandal is taking its actions out on the SpongeBob SquarePants franchise! It is almost as if it were a cockroach! This is exactly why we need to require users to create accounts to edit. Vandals can hide behind numerous IPs easily, but the same cannot be said for real accounts. WikiLubber (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
@WikiLubber: Your notes are very helpful but please don't use the same heading over and over again and please provide some links so it's easier for me to do something about this. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is your evidence. That IP has the same M.O. as the Toy Story vandal. Perfect match. All SpongeBob SquarePants articles must be protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
But this is just one edit by this IP. Indefinitely protecting a dozen articles based on one edit is a little premature. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
That IP may be different, but based on its remorseless edit summary, it is the exact same vandal who vandalizes Pixar films. We cannot take any chances. WikiLubber (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Toy Story vandal is at it again...

...on Thomas and Friends. Not each season article, nor the film articles that should have been protected along with the season articles. The MAIN article. Immediate action must me taken and the pages must be protected for at least a year. Here is your evidence. WikiLubber (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done on main page and for this IP vandal. As more appear, the same action will be taken. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
That was a good move, changing the visibility of that vandal's revisions. Any IP with that same MO-- All of their edits must be hidden. WikiLubber (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Still hasn't been deleted after Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jo M. Sekimonyo closed on August 30. Bringing this up because an [SPA account (probably Sekimonyo himself) keeps on removing the Deletion discussion tag. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Another disruptive IP...

Apparently, a sockpuppet of IP user 98.214.101.235, who adds redundant/non-constructive categories to certain articles and does not explain its edits. Thomas and Friends films are not safe from the IP and must be protected for no less than the same length as each season of the television series.

This IP sockpuppet is User 2601:81:C401:5307:985D:7967:D24D:8277. WikiLubber (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request

Hi. Can someone take a look at Template talk:Citation/core#ISBN modification? There is an edit request to the protected template. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please, block him. Thanks. Hasley (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism help

I've been trying to stay ahead of this latest vandal (who keeps trying different IP addresses to post images of primates on pages), but I have to leave for a work meeting. Can anyone else pick up the baton? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

LTAs

Check my recent edits. A lot of talk page harassment, might want to consider blocking the IP's and protecting the talk pages. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, please consider a rangeblock since the LTA is still socking. --IanDBeacon (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Showmehowtonelikeyou

Block Showmehowtonelikeyou please and thank you. ——Blessings, Josephina (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Block request

Could Gimmeyourwallet be blocked? Thanks. --Hasley (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  •  Y Done Cheers! BD2412 T 22:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please block. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism only, please block. -- CptViraj (📧) 17:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done again. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Filter for your archives

Hi. I see that you have some issues with your archives being vandalised. I have a filter for that in place at Meta that restricts access by user rights, and am happy to share it. Happy to tailor it for your needs if required too. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Tegel

Hi. Consider semi-protecting my talk page User talk:Tegel due to ongoing vandalism. -- Tegel (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Numerous articles, such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, Thomas and the Magic Railroad, and countless others, have fallen victim to the false edits of IP vandals with the same M.O. as the vandal in question. They/It continuously add(s) nonsensical categories to certain films, such as "crossover (animated) films", but none of the ones in which they edited (or, should I say, vandalized) were even close to crossovers. I request that all these IPs be blocked indefinitely and that all the pages they vandalized be protected for no less than a year. WikiLubber (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Copyright and CSD

Is there a particular reason we do not have a separate CSD criteria for copyright violations? I was just looking at Mohammad Ali Tariq Mirza, which is technically a copy/paste move from w:Draft:Mohammad Ali Tariq Mirza, and so technically a copyright violation. Was looking at WQ:CSD to see whether it provided specific guidance on copy/paste moved, but it turns out it doesn't mention copyright at all, except for a teensy note near the bottom of the page. GMGtalk 17:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please block 135.180.76.76

This user is recurring Thomas & Friends vandal:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/135.180.76.76

--67.102.118.50 02:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done. Blocked 135.180.76.76 for 1 day.--Jusjih (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Please re-block 135.180.76.76

User is resumed with unproductive improper edits, re-doing, un-doing endlessly, etc.

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Shining_Time_Station&diff=2692332&oldid=2692331

[redacted]

Block both the vandal and this IP, for assuming the IP vandal has a personal medical condition without authentication. WikiLubber (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and not only do I recommend the IPs being blocked for no less than a year, but I also recommend Shining Time Station be protected for that same time period. WikiLubber (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
[redacted]
You still cannot prove the IP is autistic. And do NOT impersonate my username by creating an account. That, too, is vandalism. Admins, I request WikiLumber be blocked infinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Independence of the wikis

Because stewards haven't replied to my complaint about the absurd global block in more than two months it's necessary to bring the case here as a warning example. My block was set very rapidly without discussion and defying the INDEPENDENCE of hundreds of local wikis I've edited without problems. More information here: [12]. It is very strange that admins identify a "vandal" not until about 100 000 contributions (and hundreds of thanks). I've been one of the main categorizers here and main contributor at many wikis. Every wiki is able to decide independently who is a vandal without Meta-wiki. I have 12 600 Finnish proverbs waiting to be published and a lot of English, Estonian and Swedish ones, for example. Preventing this is worst kind of vandalism. Many wikis seem to have no progress recently, have missed thousands of useful edits, so the block damages the project. Wikis are for the people, not to worship a couple of too big Egos. Probably my IP will be locked again to hide more facts to come in publicity. - Risto hot sir --80.223.94.92 22:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC) - If I'm a vandal it's logical to mass revert all my edits. It would be interesting to see what happens then.--80.223.94.92 00:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The stewards know what they are doing. Give it up and find another hobby. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

LTA, please block. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

 Y Globally locked. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please block. 大诺史 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@大诺史:  Y Done GMGtalk 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Canadian IP range creating new pages with no sources – thousands of edits

Somebody using the Canadian IPs Special:Contributions/2001:569:7696:1700:0:0:0:0/64 has been creating a lot of new TV and film pages which are simply the top portion of Wikipedia articles ported over to Wikiquote, with the addition of unsourced quotes. A few of the pages could be supported by IMDb, but many contain a number of unsupportable quotes, or are entirely hopeless for sourcing. This person also adds unsourced quotes to existing articles. The focus is on children's fare, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014 film) which was created two years ago by a proxy IP and then our Texas friend showed up to categorize it with a category he or she had created.

The person also creates categories which may be redundant to existing ones, or the categories may be too broad in scope.[13] This person often doesn't understand basic facts about the world, for instance classifying mice as rats.

The disruption has been going on since May 2018 under the current /64 range, but it started earlier, the earliest perhaps in July 2016 with Special:Contributions/2001:569:76D4:4800:0:0:0:0/64. Let's stop the damage so that the process of cleanup can be started. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Probably need someone who deals with pop culture topics, which is decidedly not me. @UDScott:? GMGtalk 15:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Please block, blanking content from pages. Thanks. --Hasley (talk) 20:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 20:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Jack Moore 1023

Please block Jack Moore 1023 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) for personal attacks and editwar here. Thanks, --Janbery (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Account was globally locked --DannyS712 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WQ:VfD

Just a note that we still have open VfDs going back to January. If a couple other admins could help clear the backlog it would be appreciated. I participated in the three oldest currently open requests, and I'd rather not close them. GMGtalk 15:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiLNubber

Please block. 大诺史 (talk) 10:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Convenience links: Special:Contributions/WikiLNubber, Special:Block/WikiLNubber --DannyS712 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 Y Locked 大诺史 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Two more sockpuppets afoot:
67.百七十.192.231 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
WikiRubbler (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
Someone ban this bully vandal for life. It clearly has an anti-special-needs agenda. WikiLubber (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Whois link is broken here

Hello, I just noticed whois link at anon's contribs page links to a broken tool. I recommend to change Template:Anontools/ipv4 and Template:Anontools/ipv6 to link to https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/ip/lookup instead. Thank! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done Thanks @Martin Urbanec: GMGtalk 20:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

188.146.230.53

Please block. Thanks. --Hasley (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Looks like no one got this and it went stale. GMGtalk 20:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Maybe this should help:
188.146.230.53 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log)
That vandal has been sending the same belittling message to admins and the like to try and get back at them for spoiling what it thinks is its fun (but vandalism is far from fun). WikiLubber (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The IP is in a Polish T-Mobile range. Mobile IPs will change frequently, often every few minutes if someone is travelling. Once the person changes IPs it doesn't do any good to block the old one. They're long gone. GMGtalk 00:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

108.48.1.9

Persistent vandalism from this IP. Please block. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done by Kalki. GMGtalk 00:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)re

Templates for protection

Please consider semi-protecting Template:Unblock reviewed and Template:Unblock due to persistent sock puppetry.--94rain (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done Neither of those templates appear to have been substantially changed in quite some time, and don't seem to have seen anything but vandalism in the meanwhile. Indefinitely semi-protected, as there is little reason for anyone to need to substantially change these, and less reason for newly registered accounts to do so. Thanks for the heads up @94rain:. GMGtalk 13:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

POV dispute

I invite any other admins to comment on the discussion found here: Talk:United_States#Recent_edits. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

WikiLumber sockpuppets

WikiLumber is at it again. It has created multiple accounts to try and evade its block:

WikiLubeElbowJack (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
Buster Dave (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
WikiBlabber (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
They all have the same M.O. as WikiLumber, trying to impersonate yours truly, falsely accusing IP vandals of being autistic without proper authentication, etc., and now, welcoming its own sockpuppet accounts. I request these users be blocked infinitely, its talk page privileges are revoked, and its account creation is permanently disabled. WikiLubber (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, it does not seem to accept being blocked. It has created accounts known as WikiFlubber (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) and VerdeEsMovimento (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log), among other vandals, just to try and further its anti-autism agenda. I want that vandal banned for good. WikiLubber (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if we had local check users on this project. GMGtalk 01:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
And the proper authorities dealing with this vandal. WikiLubber (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
We have yet another sockpuppet of WikiLumber: HolloweenWikipedian (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). And even its last sockpuppet account: In the past, I was once a G00D account (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) was not repentant. It claims to be a good account, but it had been nothing more than a complete bully/troll since IP vandal 67.102.118.50 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). I request that not only the sockpuppet(s) be blocked infinitely, but that all of its edit summaries and edits (from all of its accounts since the day it started as an IP vandal) be hidden. WikiLubber (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
[redacted]
Another sockpuppet of WikiLumber: "W!kīLußßer (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)". ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 07:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Please block all users in the category Suspected Wikiquote sockpuppets of WikiLumber. Thank you. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 07:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, I suggest 96.72.190.34 be blocked of its avoidant vandalism from blocking WikiLumber. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 07:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
[redacted]
There goes another vandal of WikiLumber - Щ!к!Лцввея. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 08:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Look at the category - a wholy new list has been provided. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 12:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I request that not only these accounts be blocked infinitely, but give full indefinite protection (not only from IPs, but all accounts) to the talk page of 135.180.76.76 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). WikiLubber (talk) 14:43, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I've cleaned up the lion's share of the mess. GMGtalk 14:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
The vandal is at it again, trying to evade its block and accuse some IP vandals of being autistic without any hard, sufficient, irrefutable evidence. Among the accounts: AutismUser~l35.l80.76.76~SonicISP (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log), WlKlQuoteWelcomeScript.exe (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). Someone find a way to prevent this vandal from ever vandalizing or making unsubstantiated accusations again. WikiLubber (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:New vandals: TheWellLikedArturoGustavo (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) and 止\禁用 135.一八口.76.76 止\禁用 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 23:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo:New vandals: Rub-A-Dub-WikiMan (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) and 94drought~WlKlQuote (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). Please block. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 02:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Requesting new name...

I request to change my username WikiLubber to DawgDeputy, so as to match my Wikipedia username. WikiLubber (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Please request at m:SRUC. Only global renamers or stewards can change usernames. --94rain (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

86.179.128.0/17 - vandalism

due to Special:Contributions/86.179.205.140, maybe revoke talk page access? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 21:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

A troll who clearly wants revenge on us for undoing its vandalism. Block it, revoke its talk page privileges, and take drastic action before it tries to jump IPs. WikiLubber (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 01:53, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikiquote user name policy

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Username_policy

Usernames which consist primarily of the name of a religious figure (such as "God", "Jehovah", "Buddha", or "Allah") are prohibited.

Names of religious figures such as "God","Jehovah","Buddha","Jainism" "Allah",,"Islam","Hinduism" ,"Jehovah","Jainism","Bonadea","Allah",,"Islam",“Christianity” ,”Islam”,, Sikhism”,”Juche”,”Spiritism”,”Judaism”,”Bahai”,”Jesus” “Jainism”, “Shinto”,“Cao Dai”, “Zoroastrianism”, “Tenrikyo” any other religious user names are prohibited.

If you permit i will change my user name to my religious name .

Really religious names not permitted in Wikiquote?

(Koviddoo (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC))

What username would you want? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Koavf they're an LTA. See w:en:WP:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte. Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Who is Nsmutte ? I could not understand

(Koviddoo (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC))

  • LTA sock put back in the drawer. GMGtalk 20:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism-only edits. Ahmad252 (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 14:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Another Nsmutte LTA account. Please block and nuke the pages. theinstantmatrix (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 16:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please block this IP. Thanks! Hasley (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is back to vandalize and violate regulations once again. Block it again, but this time, for life. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This IP is at it again. I request it be blocked for no less than a year, and the pages it vandalized be protected for no less than twice that same period of time. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

 Y Done Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request (protected)

Can {{historical}} be added to the following pages:

Thank you. ~riley (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Block request

108.81.228.186 (talk · contributions) Requesting temp block of above IP for vandalism and disruptive editing. Pinging Koavf as online admin. ~riley (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 08:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Justin. ~riley (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protection (semi)

Hi there,

Requesting semi-protection (autoconfirm only) for the below page due to long-term abuse by LTAs.

Appears risk of collateral damage is very low. ~riley (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

2605:E000:1315:4075:3545:1DD5:7D9C:6C93

Hi, please block 2605:E000:1315:4075:3545:1DD5:7D9C:6C93. Blessings. ~ JosephinaTalk 2 Me 10:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

His contributions are not obviously bad and at least one seems an improvement to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Even if they were, looks like it's a few hours stale at this point. GMGtalk 11:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Please semi-protect this page again. Thanks! Hasley (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

GMG+jew=EW

Please block this account. Hasley (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hypocritical Toy Story IP vandal...

207.225.26.200 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

It accuses me of ruining what it thought was updating the Toy Story page, which had been protected for a year before for good reason. But all of its edits were nothing but blatant vandalism and violation of copyright. I request this user be blocked for no less than a year and all articles it vandalized, including all Toy Story articles, be protected for no less than the same period of time. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

86.145.69.106

Looks like a LTA to me. Please block. Masumrezarock100 (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Globally and locally blocked. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Valdalism. Sk4mp (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The original Toy Story vandal...

2604:6000:E2C6:F000:BD4E:6070:E6EB:89C1 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

It is taking its vandalism out on the Thomas & Friends franchise. I request this vandal be range-blocked, and all Thomas & Friends pages be protected indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism. -- CptViraj (📧) 09:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandal

[14]. Sk4mp (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That iteration of this particular vandal-twerp has now been blocked. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism

Posting here as suggested by GMG. I am concerned by Olivia comet's contributions, especially two of them :

  • Creation of a page for Robert Faurisson, an Holocaust denier. Olivia's version referred to Faurisson as merely "an author" and provided citations which are supportive of his right to deny the Holocaust and which claim that Holocaust denial is not antisemitism. This is an extremely biaised treatment of the subject. Faurisson is known only for his Holocaust denial, and he is almost universally reviled and considered an antisemite for that. This is using Wikiquote to whitewash Holocaust denial.
  • Creation of a page for Harold Wallace Rosenthal featuring an Elders-of-Zion-esque unsourced wall of text where Rosenthal alledgedly reveals a global jewish conspiracy, plus a quote about Rosenthal which makes the same claim. The fantasy text attributed to Rosenthal is marked "disputed" - an extreme understatement. This is using Wikiquote to spread an antisemtic propaganda text.

Please do something about this user.--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

GEG for the Harold Wallace Rosenthal article when I made it in July 2019 I would've used a stronger term like "Misattributed" (or "Fabricated") for "The Hidden Tyranny" if I actually had proof it was fabricated/misattributed. I had encountered skepticism about it, which is why disputed felt appropriate at minimum. The existence of "Hidden Tyranny" is notable. You can see for example this April 2019 on Jerusalem Post makes reference to it:
Two years later, the “Rosenthal interview” was printed in an obscure white supremacist newsletter. Subsequently turned into a pamphlet called The Hidden Tyranny and posted online, the interview has since has become infamous in neo-Nazi and conspiracy theory circles.
As for finding a source for the actual quotes excerpt from it, I can't recall exactly where I had at the time (this was seven months ago) but possibly here or here. Would you prefer one of those be linked so people can affirm the sentences were correctly transcribed?
GEG as for Robert Faurisson, you should keep in mind that the first noun used to describe him on Wikipedia is actually "academic" (which is what Risto changed it to), so I would consider "author" by comparison to be a demotion rather than an enhancement as you seem to imply. Though I intended neither: "author" is simply briefer than "academic".
The present form of Faurisson's article seems to disagree with your "known only for his Holocaust denial" claim: it only says "BEST known". So he IS known for other things, even though they are are second-fiddle.
As for my quoting what Chomsky wrote about him: Noam Chomsky is a significant figure, so I don't see why I should exclude his quote merely because you don't like what Chomsky had to say about Faurisson.
If quoting Chomsky is "whitewashing Holocaust denial" then it seems like you are basically saying that Chomsky himself was whitewashing Holocaust denial, which I do NOT agree with.
Noam_Chomsky#Edward_S._Herman_and_the_Faurisson_affair:_1976–80 covers this, it was a significant controversy, so Chomsky's quote regarding Faurisson is definitely notable enough to include here.
Your addition of Dershowitz' comment on what Chomsky said regarding Faurisson helped to add additional context so thanks for that. I believe I was negligent in overlooking that followup quote further down the page. Olivia comet (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Olivia, thank you for your answer.
The source you give literally calls The Hidden Tyranny a "judeophobic hoax" right in its title. It clarifies that "(Dr. Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism), who has been studying the phenomenon of extremist groups since the mid-1990s, noted that even self-described white supremacists have debunked the interview." Can you honestly call that "disputed" ? Are we to seriously consider the theory that Rosenthal identified as a member of the all-powerful evil jewish conspiracy ?
I would prefer that Wikiquote does not engage in racist defamation at all. I hope the project already has guidelines against that.
I am ok with Faurisson being called an author or an academic. I am NOT ok with him NOT being called a Holocaust denialist, which implies being a racist activist and a liar, and which he was best known for. I am not interested in discussing the best/only distinction - calling him "best known for his Holocaust denial" would have been fine but you did not do that.
Quoting Chomsky's support for Faurisson is ok. Quoting it and not the rest of the story - the majority viewpoint, exemplified by Dershowitz, that Faurisson was a racist liar and Chomsky was misguided at best - is NOT ok.
In case you are sincere, you have indeed shown extreme negligence in both cases (although I wonder how you "negligently" stumbled upon an obscure antisemitic pamphlet like Opal Tanner White's - oh, and you called her "Harold's widow" - another negligence ?). Context is important. When the context is the Holocaust, it is frigging super important. In case the admins trust you to continue operating on Wikiquote, please be super careful or and avoid hate speech related topics.--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@GrandEscogriffe: the inclusion of a quote here is not meant to deny it being a hoax. That's why I never listed it under "quotes" as I would do if it seemed to be a legitimate one. Yes I can call it "Disputed"... "Misattributed" is basically a subgroup of "Disputed" where we have reliable sources that dispute a quote, so we trust those sources and upgrade it from "Disputed" to "Misattributed". I think all "Misattributed" quotes are technically still "Disputed", just that there isn't MUCH of a dispute still going on, as there is largely consensus among trusted experts that it is false, and only fringe arguers make unsupported arguments that it is true. I think that's basically why we introduce purported quotes in order of reliability : Quotes > Disputed > Misattributed.

You mention that "white supremacists have debunked the interview", and that is entirely the reason why I was hesitant to upgrade it to 'Misattributed' from the outset. We would not consider white supremacists to be inherently trustworthy or reliable sources in other circumstances, so why would I consider them to be trustworthy here? For all I know, this might just be infighting.

While I don't take seriously the claim that Rosenthal identified this way, Pitcavage is probably referencing Metzger as one of his sources (not sure who the other would be, since it was plural) but I basically have no grounds on which to trust anything Metzger says, as I would assume him to be an untrustworthy individual. In the very same quote Metzger also says "There is plenty of valid material to use against the Jews" but that doesn't mean we believe Metzger about that, right?

I don't object to your adding text like "Holocaust denialist", and I haven't removed it. But I don't personally feel obligated to add information like that, since I find it to be a confusing expression. I've seen it used for those who deny all aspects, and also for those who want to revise 1 aspect. I wasn't the one who added that information to Wikipedia and I don't simply copy and paste Wikipedia introductions here. Being concerned with BLP and NPOV, I make sure I only add things I've personally verified. "Author" is usually a low-effort descriptor I use since that's obviously very easy to verify (they wrote something) and doesn't require me to do a lengthy analysis of someone.

You can see an example of such brevity here where I just use 'businessman' instead of the "investor, philanthropist, and political donor" stuff later added (I assume just copied from Wikipedia intro) later. It's just how I write, because I'm focused on adding the quote, not duplicating Wikipedia.

I disagree that it's "not okay" of me to have not quoted Dershowitz. I realize this is hard for you to accept (since it was further down on the same page I cited) but I'm pretty sure I never actually saw that quote. I know it did not even occur to me to add it to the 'about' section, because I would've been glad to do that to help make the page more impressive. Dershowitz is actually a pretty cool guy and I think I would've been thrilled to add him. Text just overwhelms me sometimes so I can focus purely just on what quote I was searching for, otherwise I'll get distracted reading the rest of Google Books and lose track of time.

"Harold's widow" was a major gaff and I'm glad you caught that. I think it's pretty obvious that I had intended to call her "Walter's widow" but had a brain hiccup. Had I intended to imply she was actually Harold Rosenthal's widow, I would've just called her "Opal" (or used no name at all) not "Opal White", which clearly creates an association with "Walter White" used in the previous sentence.

I intend to be super-careful regardless of what subject it is, and not to avoid any subjects unless instructed. Olivia comet (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In a span of 2 weeks, this page has been (re)created 5 times without any actual useful content. Please delete and apply protection. Thank you. Minorax (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I've salted it for a month - if it continues after that, we can protect it for longer. I'd hate to block it indefinitely as someone someday might actually create a useful page for this character. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Another vandal

[15]. Sk4mp (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Repeated non-helpful additions to Sonic the Hedgehog (film)

This anonymous user keeps adding in blank spaces and bullet points, Paul Rudd to the cast list, and copying things that should be in the dialogue section to outside it and into the character sections. The last one isn't particularly bad per-se, but I think it goes against the established conventions. Is there a way to lock the page as well to registered users only temporarily? Ggctuk (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that this anonymous user is working on the page? I agree on the Paul Rudd case though, and this page should definitely be protected for a while, as I hate that users will not have opportunity for crating an useful page for this film. @GreenMeansGo: thoughts? (Josephine W. Talk) 10:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC))
Assuming the anonymous user is the same one as this one they seem to be sporadically editing, with the user coming back just to add empty spaces to parts of the article, or empty bullet points, or Paul Rudd. They'll then leave the article alone entirely for hours. I'm not sure they're 'contributing' beyond that. Ggctuk (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:You Can't Do That on Television

Please visit the You Can't Do That on Television Talk Page for a detailed description of the problem. As mentioned, I viewed the Talk page's History, and my own Contributions page, but no 'Undo' feature was shown, being that it's the first entry of that specific Talk page (thus its creation).
DeNoel (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@DeNoel:  Y Done (Josephine W. Talk) 04:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC))

Toy Story vandal...

Now a Thomas & Friends vandal. I request all Thomas & Friends articles be protected indefinitely so we never deal with this vandal again, and that drastic action be taken against it, as well. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is no one taking action against the vandal? DawgDeputy (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit proves the pages need permanent protection. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Request semiprotect Template:QOTD Ranking

Please semi-protect Template:QOTD Ranking (currently it is protected). I would like to add a few sentences encouraging participation in ranking QOTD suggestions and setting expectations regarding the role of the ranking in the QOTD selection process. Thank you! JessRek6 (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@JessRek6: You could just add the text here an admin will post it in if it seems like a good edit. Does that work? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I am a registered editor in good standing. I would prefer to edit boldly, and would prefer not to discuss content here on a noticeboard. Thank you again. JessRek6 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. As Kalki has already been pinged as is the one who first protected it, I'll at least give him some time to respond as a courtesy. If he hasn't done anything in a couple of days (he usually edits here every day), then ping me and I'll reduce protection. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is transcluded on around 250 pages, but they're all internal page and not public-facing. No history of vandalism, not that anyone had a chance, since it was only unprotected for six minutes. @Kalki: Thoughts? GMGtalk 18:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
A request to suddenly open this template to general editing because of expression of a will and personal preference "not to discuss content here on a noticeboard" by someone who in the last few days has been repeatedly derisive and apparently resentful of my judgement in not choosing her suggestion and preference for the QOTD on the 17th of this month is not indicative of a request I believe to be entirely reasonable or justified.
I believe any reasonably warranted changes to be made to that template can be made by admins after discussions of suggestions either here or on the talk page for that template. The template is a simple summary of the QOTD ranking process which is presented on each and every QOTD suggestion page, and I see no need to unprotect it and open it to sudden changes by general editors.
I can concede some very slight additions might perhaps be appropriate. Prior the the last few days, I had assumed that the act of assessing the relative rankings of quotes by averaging out the available rankings of each quote would be a sufficiently familiar and obvious process to most people as to not require explication, but can accept that a more explicit clarification of the use of that process on the template page, while I don’t believe it actually necessary might conceivably be helpful to some. More extensive elaborations on some of the conceivably more extravagant, very rarely or never actually used possibilities and potentials innate in assessing quotes through the averaging processes, or perhaps even personal opinions on some of these potentials, would probably not be helpful additions on a summary template on each suggestion page. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
We agree some modest additions to the template to set the expectations of participating editors regarding the selection process might help avoid misunderstandings going forward. Please reduce the protection to semi, and then let us collaborate in good faith to document the existing process, as accurately and fairly and as concisely as possible, with no elaborations or enhancements. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I started to comply with this request, but I actually think that Kalki's request for further elaboration of what might be changed is a valid one. Once any potential changes are discussed and agreed, they can be made. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I am specifically proposing that interested parties collaborate on a modest addition to the template to summarize the existing selection process. I am not proposing any new policy or guideline or process or change to any policy or guideline or process. Further elaboration is more appropriate at the template discussion page as part of a collaborative editing effort. I am an editor in good standing and I respectfully request the privilege due any editor in good standing of bold editing. Kalki is an admin, I am not, and this is an issue of content, so as an expression of good faith I would like all interested parties to participate as editors. The exposure is extremely limited; changes to the template will only be visible to those brave few who make QOTD suggestions or who read and rank others' QOTD suggestions. I will voluntarily limit myself to one template edit per day, in order to accommodate my colleague's editing style. I will commit to BRD including of course talk page discussion; I am not a vandal, please do not fear an edit war. JessRek6 (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Your points seem valid to me. I will reduce the protection to allow the requested collaboration - please continue to discuss proposed changes before making them. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually definitely disagree with the reduction of protection of the template.

I believe that this editor's responses can easily seem to have something of the character of the legendary Greek armies before Troy suddenly declaring "please open your gates" so we can eventually better collaborate after you accept our beautiful gift of a wooden horse. The results here could certainly not be so disastrous as that of the legendary tales, but I have the impression it is very likely they would not be much more welcome to anyone of genuine good faith and good sense. Anticipating changes of a basic instructional template "limited to" one per day is something that definitely seems extreme, and extremely contentious.

The existing templates read very simply:

Ranking system
4 : Excellent - should definitely be used. (This is the utmost ranking and should be used only for one quote at a time, per person, for each date.)
3 : Very Good - strong desire to see it used.
2 : Good - some desire to see it used.
1 : Acceptable - but with no particular desire to see it used.
0 : Not acceptable - not appropriate for use as a quote of the day.

In reviewing the above, I believe that perhaps the statement regarding the "4" ranking could be entirely in bold text to denote the definitely imperative nature of it, in regard to any other options considered, thus reading: "Excellent - should definitely be used."

In addition to the simple straightforward presentation of the ranking options a very brief summation of the selection process could also be added, something along the lines of:

An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day.

OR, at most, a somewhat more extensive elaboration, perhaps reading:

An averaging process for the ranking provided to each suggestion produces it’s general ranking in considerations for selection of Quote of the Day. The selections made are almost always chosen from among the top ranked options existing on the page on the date prior to their use, but the provision of highly ranked late additions, usually in regard to special events (most commonly in regard to the deaths of famous people, or other major social or physical occurrences), always remain an option for final selections.

The available options for potentially sudden additions outranking previous options in considerations seems to be what this editor most objects to — but I believe that such should ALWAYS remain an option available to whomever makes the final selections for QOTD, now and in the future, so as to be ALWAYS be able to be swiftly responsive to any major contemporary developments, such as notable deaths or disasters, and also as a potential fail-safe measure against "invasive troll work" which are conceivably very plausible actions on this and many other sites in the present era of social media contentions and clandestine political subterfuge. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Please join the discussion at Template talk:QOTD Ranking. JessRek6 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for FULL protection being restored on Template:QOTD Ranking and established on Wikiquote:Quote of the day presentation page

I clearly objected to removing the protections, and I believe sufficient and probably helpful alterations have now been made to this template, and that the FULL protection of it should NOW be RESTORED. Other activities of the person requesting the lessening of the protection leave me very wary of genuine good faith intentions in regard to many matters. I put up a single day block to the Wikiquote:Quote of the day page, after she, without ANY prior discussion, posted AS IF they were official summaries of official policies and procedures "Maintenance instructions" which were somewhat redundant with presentations already available on that page, though I could conceive of incorporating some of these into the prior expositions in a more simple way, and "Deployment instructions" which I very PROMPTLY removed, as ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE which implied it to be official policy and procedure for ANY editor to make FINAL selections for the QOTD and seek to POST them as such. She seems to presently be very intent on promoting such a practice as a policy. I believe most admins can appreciate that such IRRATIONAL assertions are more of an invitation to TROLLING and even more extensive vandalism activities than any actual viable procedures here. Having technically been accused of simply being involved in a "content dispute" by TWICE removing such improper material and open invitations to trolls from the page, I do not wish to further protect the pages myself, but request that the Wikiquote:Quote of the day also be FULLY protected, perhaps permanently at this point, from what I believe to be a strong possibility of further potentially very disruptive and BAD FAITH edits. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I made the above request after she posted the "Deployment instructions" on the Quote of the Day talk page after I protected the main page from such insertions. I did NOT remove these from that page, as not so inappropriate a placement — but I responded to her assertions that her rather extreme proposals should simply be posted and accepted as "official policy" here. I obviously quite strongly disagree. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I've restored the full protection to the pages - thank you for entertaining suggestions on the process and pages. Further discussion can of course continue, but I agree that these pages are so integral to the project such that they should be managed by an admin. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will probably attempt to incorporate some of her more reasonable revisions or suggestions to the pages, and will probably begin with some adjustments of her additions to "Wikiquote:Quote of the day", so as to eliminate redundancies and merge them with such information as already existed on the page. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
For the convenience of anyone wishing to examine many of the issues involved in this dispute in a more unified form, I have compiled most recent discussions involving myself and JessRek6 (talk · contributions) into a few subsections on my talk page. (I have recently completed a long delayed archiving of that page, so it is not so oppressively extensive as it was just a few days ago, and only these discussions, and one other I have not yet attended to remain in the talk sections). ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
For clarity and ease of navigation through what have been gradually growing discussions of recent days I have left the discussions which began on my talk page in white, the subsequent discussions here tinted blue, those on the Template talk:QOTD Ranking tinted green, and those on Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day tinted red. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 17:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Well I'm certainly not reading through this wall of text. But I still don't see where the disruption is that requires protection. There was a single edit by a non-administrator during the unprotected period, half of which is still there. Moreover, something like this is difficult to interpret as anything other than an extended personal attack. GMGtalk 18:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The "wall of text" had some formatting errors which were corrected with subsequent edits, but it was an extensive response to what I believe were clearly false claims and characterizations of circumstances which I believed had to be specifically and extensively addressed. In the response you seem to object to more strongly I myself was responding to what I truly believe to be the quite evident distortions, dishonesties, false assumptions and false assertions which were evident in many recent posts, and in the most recent acts of attempting to post certain procedures AS IF they were accepted and established policies when they certainly were NOT, and I believe that they were actually nothing less than entirely new innovations in trolling and invitations to trolling. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
If you are going to repeatedly accuse someone of trolling, disruption, arrogant and asinine vandalism, bad faith exposures, misleading distortions, outright lies, disingenuousness and dishonesty, then you better come bearing some pretty convincing diffs. GMGtalk 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Though I certainly examine them regularly, I usually do not confine my arguments or assessments to presenting or comparing "diffs" which can themselves often be chosen to present very select and narrow windows on circumstances. In consideration of anyone who is inclined to examine many of the stages of the assertions and contentions which have developed in the current disputes, I have presently cleared my talk page of nearly all other material, and it now consists primarily of an extensive presentation of discussions on the pages in which these current disputes have developed, in color coded subsections for ease of perusal. I certainly am not in any way inclined to advocate a neglect or disregard of this editor's valid concerns or assertions because of present disputes with her, and I believe I have accommodated some of them, and am willing to accommodate more, but I do believe that major project pages should not be open to her sudden alteration, to post such sudden innovations as "Deployment instructions" AS IF they were approved and accepted procedures here, in total disregard, defiance and denigration of those which actually exist. I have indicated in some of my previous responses specific ways in which I genuinely believe many of her assertions have been misleading or simply false, whether by mistake or by design, and to my discernment even many true assertions seem to have been mixed or tinged with false ones or appeals to false assumptions in deliberately deceptive ways, but I am well aware that this is always something difficult to actually prove. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 19:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have read through the discussion (with the exception of the 4,200 word wall of text), and their comments seem cordial and fairly within reason (not to mention comparatively concise). Your responses do not. If your evidence is confined to your own personal beliefs, then stop making personal attacks and explicit assumptions of bad faith. If you want to accuse someone of vandalism, disruption, and trolling, "I don't fancy diffs" does not constitute evidence. GMGtalk 20:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
We are all somewhat limited by our own beliefs, but I believe that you are asserting as your apparent belief that my "evidence is confined to your own personal beliefs" — but if you actually examined the "4,200 word wall of text" where I detail some of the errors, distortions and deceptions which I assert were evident in the comments and "audit" which prompted that very extensive and detailed rebuttal, I believe that such an assertion would not be rationally maintained. I actually have NOT been inclined to accuse her of direct and deliberate vandalism, though I confess that was something I have been inclined to suspect at times, but I definitely believe some of her postings were innately promotional of greater opportunities for vandals and trolls, and some of my statements asserting that could be read ambiguously. I am well aware very skilled trolls and vandals do not need such information, but many more casual and incidental trolls could begin to make use of it when posted to prominent pages. I am NOT inclined to view her or ANY person as an innately "bad person" but I do definitely perceive that there are evident inclinations, intentions and activities I consider it proper to object to and oppose, and I have simply done so. I have no problem accommodating what I perceive to be reasonable suggestions and requests from her or anyone. I will probably not have time today to do much work on merging some of the comments she posted to a project page which I did not believe it necessary to remove, with such information as was already there, but I might get around to that tomorrow, or at least within a few days, and simultaneously refine and update some long obsolete presentations on the page, whenever I do get around to it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 20:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
"I will state that I definitely have increasing contempt for what I hold to be your increasingly evident DIS-INGENUOUSNESS and DISHONESTY, and apparent intentions to further disrupt this project in various subtle or overt ways." (diff). GMGtalk 20:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I was attending to other matters for a while, and just saw your posting. The statement you quote is bluntly honest, and I was expressing and asserting a bit of anger and genuine and increasing contempt for what I perceived to be qualities which were evident in actions and expressions I was immediately and directly responding to. Even so, I am extremely aware that such qualities as are immediately evident in circumstances are NOT the only ones which exist in ANYONE, even the people who are most habitually dishonest, deceitful or conniving, but to the extent I discern such qualities to be becoming increasingly evident or persistent in any situation or set of actions, I am sometimes very inclined to make note of that in various overt or subtle ways. I am very well aware all people and all circumstances are complex, and am NOT prone to seek to characterize people as "ONLY" manifesting ANY qualities which might be immediately apparent — I consider such inclinations themselves quite foolish, and all too common. While I was attending to other matters I actually had some thoughts pertinent to some matters here, but in assessing my own limited capacities to explicate and indicate many of them in ways that might be easily understandable or appreciated, I will simply decline to complicate matters further, other than to state they inclined me to amusement and tolerance and certainly not to bitterness or resentment. I do have to attend to other matters more extensively now, so I expect my presence here today to become even more sporadic. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Assume good faith is not a suggestion; it is a requirement. You are expected to work collaboratively with others. Being a long-term user or an administrator does not exempt you from this requirement, neither does it exempt you from being blocked for making personal attacks or casting aspersions without providing evidence. Being a long-term user and administrator requires that you should understand and model this above and beyond the average user. I trust you will take this mandate seriously going forward. GMGtalk 22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As you stated you were not inclined to examine the "wall of text" which I assert is in many ways actually a wall of EVIDENCE, such as you imply I do not provide, presented in response to her derisive assertions and claims regarding an "audit" of a week of my selection processes, in which I refute her specific allegations and also tabulated up circumstances and actions regarding many years of edits in February, I have extracted just a few of the more clearly expository statements which most directly refute some of her explicit accusations against me in her putative "audit". I will also note that one general aspect of her "audit" and other comments which can be summarized as deceptive is continually remarking on ALL the rankings of quotes as "support" for them, when quite often this is quite CONTRARY to facts, and the rankings often do NOT actually indicate positive support, and sometimes not even acceptance but actual REJECTION, and that is actually the case in some of the incidents she remarks upon, and this is certainly a significant form of falsehood to note. In refuting her statements I confess I also clearly occasionally used a few "harsh" words like "deceitful", "deceitfulness" and even "hypocrisy" while providing evidence in response to her harsh accusations — which most people are aware can be made without using harsh words at all. I will confess I could be easily considered guilty of extreme idiocy in that particular skill.
To try to keep things relatively brief I provide simply extracts and NOT the complete information regarding THREE of the dates "audited" focusing only on parts where I was responding directly to several of her accusations against me, where against her allegations and innuendos I definitely establish that there was no impropriety on my part in making these selections. I am aware the details of these assertions are somewhat tedious, and probably not easily understood by all, but they definitely refute her assertions.
February 10 : I have already observed that in recent years many quotes do not have rankings other than those provided by those who post them, and I believe you are rather deceitful in characterizing my selection for this date on this year with the crude summation: "2/10 - You selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 8 with support from editors other than yourself." The selection you disparage was a significant statement by a significant author which I had first posted in February 2017:
I believe that cruelty, spite,
The powers of darkness will in time
Be crushed by the spirit of light.
~ Boris Pasternak ~
I had ranked it as a 3 on posting it, and I finalized it as a 4. Though I sometimes post a "2" or even very rarely a "1", I actually seldom post quotes I do not consider a 3, and I believe that over the years I have had more people agree than disagree with my assessments. The 8 remaining options provided by others have actual current rankings of 2.25, 2, 2, 2.3, 2, 3, 3, and 2.5. Most of those rankings on the lower scale date from prior to 2009, and the last 3, which include my own rankings of good quotes suggested by a well appreciated contributor date from 2013.
February 11 : "2/11 - On Edison's birthday, you selected a quote proposed by another editor and that had support from one other editor, while not selecting from among 3 suggestions that had support from two or more editors other than yourself." • In this case I believe that rank hypocrisy and deceitfulness are RAMPANT: I actually chose a quote from another editor — and ALL of the remaining suggestions save one are those I myself provided — some of which had rankings by other editors, but one of which I myself came to rank "0" as I eventually could not find a reliable source for it, and the other with other people's assessments only ranking a 2.6. The one other suggestion other than my own which remains as an option only has a ranking of 2.25 — while the one I selected by a well respected contributor was ranked 3 by himself on posting it in 2012, and also a 3 by me, until selecting it this year, at which point I boosted it with a 4.
February 14 : This date's selection you summarize with the statement: "2/14 - On Valentine's Day, you selected your own suggestion, which had support only from yourself, even though the previous suggestions included 2 with support from two or more editors other than yourself." — again these 2 that were valid suggestions have for many YEARS ranked LESS than most of the other available suggestions on the page — and ALL the other options are currently my own suggestions.
In closing, I also wish to note that some of my harshest comments were responses to what I considered to be improper actions that had taken place only moments before my comments, and that at no point did I seek to unjustly constrain her from making suggestions, comments, or even further denigration of my integrity. I simply at one point took action to prevent further posting of what I considered improper and deceptive material to a significant project page. Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 05:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Nirvblast

Please block Nirvblast (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) for having personal attacks on Flyer22 Frozen, which took place here. (Josephine W. Talk) 05:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC))

This vandal account has been permanently blocked. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 09:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Long overdue closure of vote for deletion-Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jo Moseli Sekimonyo

Technically, this vote closed five months ago but no action has been taken. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@GPL93: Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for admonition against recent misuse and abuses of existing QOTD ranking system and suggestion pages

I have previously declared some of the behavior and assertions of JessRek6 (talk · contributions) as appearing to me in various ways suspicious or improper, but I have not attempted to prevent her from engaging in any forms of activity which I have simply found to be mildly irritating, mildly misleading or merely troublesome in various ways.

I will state that she has attempted to make very sudden and not previously discussed and completely undisclosed one person declarations and descriptions of entirely new practices and policies AS IF they were actually officially sanctioned in regard to various things, by various measures, some of them quite improper.

This first of these became clearly evident in attempts to post AS IF they were established and approved official procedures such practices as have actually NEVER been such, to a project page.

There were earlier merely some discussions in which she used or advocated irrational and improper methods of tallying of the rankings of quotes as if they should be used to designate cumulative rather than averaged values, and other assertions in which I found little or no merit. I found these mildly surprising, but so plainly irrational as to not be seriously alarming in most regards.

I am inclined to characterize some subsequent behavior as subtle trolling or derision, but the presently most serious incidents of a clear misuse and abuse of some of her privileges have been evidenced in her postings to pages for suggestions for the QOTD of recent dates. This has thus far only been done regarding 2 pages, but it definitely should not proceed further.

On the rather meager and seldom used options available for February 29 she ranked as "0" and thus "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" every quote suggestion but 2, justifying this with assertions either that "Quote from same source [i.e. AUTHOR] used previously on this date" and/or "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date".

On the more extensive options for March 1 she has thus far limited her rankings of "0" only to my particular suggestions, ranking all 7 of my unused suggestions "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" sometimes SOLELY with the putative justification "Nominations from the same editor used previously on this date".

It is possible that she has perhaps begun to become at least a little bit more appreciative of some of the absurdities of some of her current actions, as rigorously applying her novel criteria to the options available at the March 2 page would rank 21 generally highly ranked options on the page as "Not acceptable", leaving only 1 option on the entire page, a quote proposed in 2009 by Zarbon (talk · contributions) but not rated more than a 2 by anyone, including him (and which I actually give the highest expressed regard, declaring a "lean" toward 3, in ranking it 2). Applying the same criteria by which she has posted a "0" to suggestions of the previous two dates would declare as "unacceptable" all present and future quotes by such individuals as of Dr. Seuss, Carl Schurz, Russ Feingold, Mikhail Gorbachev, and John Irving, as they have all previously been quoted on that day of the month, and also one suggestion which I actually already had indicated was unacceptable without explicitly ranking it "0", as having been wrongly attributed to Peter Straub, when it is actually a statement of Jesus as reported in the Gospel of Thomas.

  • Correction : In doing some quick examination of upcoming and very recent QOTD suggestion pages, while preparing to develop considerations for upcoming QOTDs, I realized that I was actually mistaken in my previous remarks when I indicated that applying the criteria JessRek6 had used to mark many quotes as "0" on pages of recent days to those of 2 March, would have left only 1 low ranked quote suggested by Zarbon viable out of 22 other options. I had actually failed to notice that several suggestions by Zarbon had already been used previously for that day of the month, and thus applying the criteria she had applied in previous days would have actually left absolutely NONE of the 22 options posted on the page unmarked with a "0", and thus designated "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day". ~ Kalki

She is plainly and methodically applying criteria entirely extraneous to the merits of the quotes themselves in ranking them, in a quite irrational and improper abuse of the most extreme of the available rankings. I request that other admins recognize that the criteria she has been attempting to apply, advocate and copiously imply to be validly established by various postings, are actually disruptive and detrimental to the genuinely and sincerely contributive efforts of many others, including myself, and to join me in requesting, and indeed instructing her to desist from this behavior of irrationally applying such irrelevant criteria, as an improper disregard and disruption of the many-years-long rational applications of these rankings by most others. I also believe she should be officially requested to remove or alter all the "0" rankings justified merely by the criteria that material from EITHER the "source" or nominator had been used previously for that date, as being an innately inappropriate use of the "Not acceptable – not appropriate for use as a quote of the day" designation. I certainly would not seek to forbid her from using the "0" ranking for legitimately valid reasons, with which it has long been used, such as the clear falseness or the perceived foulness of a statement, or its lack of correct or reliable citations.

There are also matters of lesser importance, one of which I will specify here. As I have been the selector of the QOTD here since 2004, developed the ranking system in use without any significant controversy as to my selections made with it in all the years since it was developed until the current ones which arose after I did not select a quote JessRek6 had suggested for a recent day, it is is certainly not necessary to expressly specify on each and every QOTD that they were "selected by Kalki", as she has begun to do on several pages, and I request that I be joined in requesting her to cease in this activity also, though it is of clearly lesser consequence. Even so, such a procedure of specifically identifying every QOTD I select as having been selected by me from the available options is no more necessary or proper than it would be for each and every quote on every page be specified as "provided by User:WHOEVER happened to actually post it." It simply adds to distracting and generally unneeded and useless information.

I welcome consideration and discussion of the matters involved, and hope that we can soon come to agreements. I will be notifying her of this discussion also, so that she can respond as to her understandings, and any rationale or motive she might wish to present regarding her actions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Can we take a step back and think about how ridiculous it is that we have a fight over this and we've written a novel on this page? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I...yeah...if you want to foster some type of collaborative discussion, you're going to have to start with comments that are less than 1,000 words. GMGtalk 18:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Some of my past statements, which I have conceded have sometimes been worded a bit more harshly than necessary have been criticized as having been made "without evidence", which I actually believe to be an error. The immediate remarks might not be directly attached to what I perceive as very copious available evidence, but I have agreed it is proper that I should temper my remarks, and be prepared to provide any statements I make with directly associated evidence.
My initial comments were roughly 7,400 words characters (thus roughly 1,480 words), simply describing the situations which exist on a few pages and providing links to these, for those who wish to examine the specific evidence of my assertions. I confess I am a person very prone to very complex thoughts, and thus sometimes prone to making very complex and precise expressions in trying to indicate some matters as accurately and honestly as I can, in such ways as I believe can be adequately understood by others. I do not wish to clutter the minds of others needlessly with many observations such as are currently in my mind, so I will close now. Thank you for your existing attention to this matter, and I hope we can come to agreements upon it. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 18:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Brevity is the soul of wit, but more to the point, being unable to engage in a community discussion with something other than 1,000 to 4,000 word comments is itself disruptive in a way, and stifles the ability of a broad range of community members to participate. GMGtalk 18:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a list of diffs to edits which you claim violate policy or guideline or demonstrate some other abuse or misuse. Thank you in advance for your concise reply. JessRek6 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe that after the above remarks and responses most people could easily perceive your request as somewhat facetious or an even more laughable attempt to feign belief of an inadequacy of evidence being presented here. Instead of my adding a further clutter of "diffs" of your extensive edits anyone could simply use the available links to the mentioned pages and examine them, and anyone actually wishing to examine the many available "diffs" more meticulously can simply browse through the recent history of those very few pages. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 21:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
@Kalki: Do you understand why statements like, "I believe that after the above remarks and responses most people could easily perceive your request as somewhat facetious or an even more laughable attempt to feign belief of an inadequacy of evidence being presented here." are not helpful? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: Is that a "no", then? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
IF you REALLY want to get into disputes about it, I can and DO understand MANY reasons why MANY "sincere observations are quite obviously often not helpful" — and decided to rapidly strike this one out, in compliance with your expressed concern regarding it. I am also very familiar with MANY reasons why they are not WELCOME by many people, and am obviously often willing to accommodate and defer to their express concerns — even if I genuinely do not actually agree with all of them, I can and am willing to be extensively accommodating, so long as it does not violate my own or anyone else's actual integrity. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 22:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: Then the answer is no. It's not helpful not because of its sincerity (this is obviously a self-serving way of interpreting this) but because it's more rambling from you. If you string together enough Latin-derived words, it's not like you're right all of the sudden. I actually was on your side in regards to editing the template above and then you went off the rails and wrote a novel that no one on Earth is going to read. I expect admins to have an ability to communicate with other users and be accommodating and clear; you're displaying the exact opposite here. Let me encourage you in the spirit of collegiality to take a step back and not post here for at least a bit. Nothing is being accomplished here and no one is reading all of your word salad. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay. I defer to your expressed displays of wisdom. I had been almost prepared to leave several times, including just now, but will be doing so soon. I hope we can both better and more happily communicate sometime in the future. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Kalki: You may be right - her sudden edit on Wikiquote:Quote of the day seems to be inappropriate, which means I’m neutral, with a weak support for the block. (Josephine W. Talk) 06:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC))
I just got online moments ago, and read your comment. I want to make clear I am NOT requesting any form of block of JessRek6 at this time, as I don’t believe such measures are as yet necessary, but I am simply asking for extensive recognition that there IS actually a very significant problem with many of her recent edits, current activity and apparent intentions. Thank you for expressing your opinion. I actually plan to be posting a notice to my talk page indicating I suddenly anticipate having VERY little time to spend here for the next week and especially the next few days. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 07:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I see your point, Kalki. It's clear to me now that JessRek6 intends good faith. (Josephine W. Talk) 08:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

Can i create Jesus related article in Wikiquote?

  • For future reference to other admins, if a user shows up here, or pretty much anywhere else on any project complaining about religious user names and especially about Bonadea, they are definitely a sock of w:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nsmutte and should just be blocked on sight. GMGtalk 12:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Releasing deleted page

Hi there, OTRS has received a request for releasing a deleted page to them. They claim to be the page subject. Would the admins be okay with that? --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: What queue is this in? I can't see it. GMGtalk 13:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
sister-projects::wikiquote. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
For others, we resolved this via email. GMGtalk 23:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Incivility from an administrator

Please see User talk:Kalki#Please strike through comments involving Nazism. Please engage there to spare this noticeboard as per the instructions above on this noticeboard. Thank you. JessRek6 (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Diffs at linked talk page section. JessRek6 (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Diffs below. JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, JessRek6. Nazi quotes are definitely allowed, as wikimedia was designed for everyone to freely share their knowledge. I’m with you on this topic. (Josephine W. Talk) 00:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC))
I believe there are various forms of confusing statements here. I believe that JessRek6 is accusing of me of incivility in providing very clear evidence of very misleading deceptions on her part, and at times declaring them to be such, and in making such statements as:
  • "There is no extensive "wall of text" in my most recent responses to your remarks, simply relatively short and very to-the-point assertions and examples of that which I address with sincere civility and good faith in the potential for most people to develop capacities to engage with others in such sincere civility as does not preclude or forbid honest observations or criticisms."
  • "Any insistence that any person should ever surrender to or simply accommodate what are very clearly demands of blatantly displayed deceitfulness are among the most offensive comments I believe could ever be made to any human being by any other. I do not demand you strike them out — but instead simply assert that they testify very clearly to many aspects of your evident intentions, attitudes and behavior regarding many things."
As to the title of the section, JessRek6 titled the section on my talkpage which she refers to as "instructions" to me, not I. She has also been responsible for initiating MOST of the sections currently on it, not I, and I indicate truthfully that I perceive most of these to have been "apparently prompted" because I did not happen to use a particular quote which she had proposed regarding "a passionate listing of examples of BS (Bullshit) as the QOTD on the 17th of last month" (which is an accurate description of the quote which lists forms of declared "BS"), and I actually preferred another of more moderate and temperate nature, which had application to broader issues, as well as those mentioned in the quote she wished to be used. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 01:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
It’s not clear what you mean by the above comment. Can you express it in a more easy way for me to understand since I am Chinese? Thanks.(Josephine W. Talk) 06:07, 5 March 2020 (UTC)) + @JessRek6: Please reply the comments I made on my talk page, thanks. (Josephine W. Talk) 06:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC))  Y Done JessRek6 (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I am well aware of many of the problems involved in translations, and also that sorting these out properly can be even more difficult when even in the original language expressions are not used properly, or used misleadingly. In my own comments I was speaking towards anyone concerned with these matters about important aspects of remarks JessRek6 and myself. I am not sure of the significance of some of your remarks, nor entirely to whom they are directed at times, but I believe that in all of them I can recognize the genuine desire to be considerate of others in many ways. I do not actually recognize such genuine desire in many of the statements of JessRek6, and many of the confusions hers could produce seem to be deliberately intended results. As I have indicated many times recently, in relatively brief remarks, I have many urgent reasons not to attend to many matters here for very long. I do hope everyone involved or considering these matters can and will actually sort through the existing confusions, and that eventually a more clearly understood and generally charitable state of affairs can be firmly established. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 09:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks

Diffs

...you are actually repeating one of the most prominent strategies of the previously mentioned editor who was most prolific in suggesting militaristic, pro-authoritarian and Nazi quotes to the pages, and that is simply a FACT...

...I mentioned an editor whose tactics in some instances were identical in their extremes and particular to yours — but you have actually recently exceeded even some of his extremes in regard to those. He happened to sometimes zealously promote Nazi quotes for QOTD...

Discussion

Comments? JessRek6 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

You are again clearly REPEATING your recurring practice of providing portions of quotes craftily edited to make them seem to imply they indicate something they do NOT, and within their actual context they are at times clearly being used in rejecting or REFUTING such claims as you have recurrently made. To these you add links to "diffs" by which some people might notice such things, but I find MOST people do not actually examine these extensively or carefully, if at all, and I am very familiar with such uses of this misleading presentation process, having encountered many deceptive uses of it in the past. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Please strike through the most outrageous of your comments, and demonstrate to the community you have some understanding of our civility norms. JessRek6 (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope that you can soon come to recognize the most outrageous of your comments, and demonstrate you have some genuine understanding of civility. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 00:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweak
Then may you provide your understandings of civility, Kalki and JessRek6? Like JessRek6 posted before, I would like some diffs of nonhelpful edits. I seem to be neutral currently. (Josephine W. Talk) 06:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC))
Our civility norms are documented here WQ:PG and here WQ:NPA. Diffs are above. JessRek6 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
There are many notions of proper civility and improper disregard, derision, denigration, defamation and desecration of it, but my own notions of the utmost forms of genuine civility correspond with major aspects of ethical integrity and a deep and abiding respect for Humanity and the capacities for most human beings to manifest genuine ethical integrity with honest compassion and compassionate honesty and to oppose any endeavors to unjustly or needlessly constrain or harm the lives or proper rights of anyone. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I will likely respond further when I am able - and when those involved have a chance to fully provide their responses, but my initial take is that this has gotten blown way out of proportion. I do not believe that Kalki equated JessRek6 with Nazis - perhaps it could have been worded better, but I believe the intent was to say that tactics used in the discussion reminded Kalki of those used by someone else in the past (who happened to favor quotes from former Nazis). I will reserve further comment as I am unable to spend more time at the moment. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
This seems like inappropriate behavior where Kalki has been hotheaded a little bit but I am not seeing any actions that warrant an indefinite block. I have also publicly questioned his fitness as an admin here and I think he has made missteps but this does not warrant the proposed solution below. To be frank, there is no way that I am going to read thru all of this so if someone wants to provide me a handful of diffs that show otherwise, then that's great. The two I saw above were flimsy for an indefinite block of an active admin. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, even as we speak, the target talk page is getting longer and longer, as content from other pages is copied in, further frustrating investigation. Please read the two diffs above. You wrote, "active admin". How is that relevant? Our civility norms apply to all editors. Admins are expected to lead by example on all behavioral norms. If anything, behavioral norms are more important for admins. I am supposed to be able to participate without harassment by personal attacks. A lack of active admins does not warrant a lowering of our standards with respect to our behavioral norms. The goal of the proposal is not punishment, is not the block: the goal is to have the editor recognize their personal attacks and demonstrate their understanding. This editor has learned other of our norms in the past, such as our multiple account policy, but only slowly, and under protest, and now they need to clearly demonstrate they have learned and understand our civility norm. If in your view the proposal is unwarranted, what is your proposal? I would welcome any proposal that includes some demonstration of understanding such as striking through. JessRek6 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Because someone who does a lot of good things and a few bad ones is different from someone who only does bad ones. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
No amount of constructive edits give license to personal attacks. No one is so irreplaceable they can behave however they want. No one is saying anyone only does bad edits. Please focus on the two diffs and what our response should be. What is your plan for making Wikiquote safe? An active admin may pepper their talk page with comments comparing others to Nazis? If I want to contribute to Wikiquote, I need to put up with personal attacks from editors with more edits than me? 17:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. As I wrote, I don't think these two diffs are enough to show that someone should be indefinitely blocked. Some poor wording and some interaction with a user that I think an admin shouldn't have but you're vastly overplaying your hand with this response. You should not put up with personal attacks, no. This thread has gone on far, far, far too long: let's all please get back to actually editing the quotation directory. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the area of agreement as you see it? The proposal is a block, to last only as long as an administrator of Wikiquote insists on their right to compare others to Nazis. They can end this discussion, or end the block at any time a simple demonstration of their understand our civility norms, by striking through their personal attacks. This thread was opened 5 March. This is a serious issue demanding administrator intervention. JessRek6 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
What you are either not rationally registering or merely not acknowledging is that MOST of the respondents here are clearly recognizing that your CLAIMS that I compared you to Nazis is simply FALSE, and a VERY MISLEADING representation or perhaps genuinely MISTAKEN assessment of what actually OCCURRED. I was just moments ago responding more extensively to these assertions elsewhere, where you recently repeated them with new variants, and I believe these false assertions should be countered — though I recognizing some might perceive me to be simply responding to trolling there is danger that some individuals being more casually observant might actually be misled by the repetitious vigor your quite FALSE allegations. As I state there also: "Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions." ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Kalki is without question a first-class oddball, but comparing the conduct of one editor with another who happened to have a fetish for Nazi quotes is not the same as calling that editor a Nazi or suggesting that they have a similar fetish. BD2412 T 05:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I thank everyone for their recent remarks regarding these issues. Other than my own, I had not witnessed any definite pushback at all against some very misleading or definitely false assertions and allegations against me, which is one reason, with one notably extensive exception, that I attempted relatively brief but vigorous responses every time there were repeated attempts at such. I hope that these discussions can remain more moderate now, and can soon come to a satisfactory close, within the coming week or so. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 05:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, @BD2412: On Wikiquote, I am my editing behavior. There is no useful distinction between "You are a Nazi." and "Your edits remind me of a Nazi", and there is no distinction whatsoever when you are on the receiving end, let me tell you. Is it your understanding of WQ:NPA, that one editor may compare another to a Nazi, if it is couched in a sufficiently indirect, oblique manner, or buried in baroque language? JessRek6 (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
How to recognize personal attacks, from WP:NPA:
What is considered to be a personal attack?
JessRek6 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It is YOU who have actually called another editor a "Nazi", and a "Nazi sympathizer" — and though I had many vigorous disputes with him, I believe I never called that editor either. It might seem very convenient and useful for YOU to do so and imply that I did — but such things simply were NOT done by me — and for you to continue to repeatedly imply or insist that it did, in regard to that other editor OR to you, despite the actual record clearly showing otherwise, as others who have sufficiently examined it now have several times indicated, and to seek ways for me to be penalized for what I actually did not say or do is simply the latest of your own very unjust and misleading personal attacks against me. YOU KEEP REPEATING SUCH THINGS AS I DID NOT SAY. You keep INVENTING new ways to imply that what was said is what you want to PORTRAY it to have been, and fiction follows fiction in the variations of such things as you say were said or implied — by such OTHER things as ALSO were NOT actually said. Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, comparing an editor to a Nazi is not poor word choice, it is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
My point was that I do not believe that Kalki did in fact compare you to a Nazi. The comparison was between your actions and the actions of another person that also happened to favor quotes from Nazis. That does not logically mean that you were being called a Nazi. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412:, comparing an editor to a Nazi is not an idiosyncrasy, it is not a fetish; it is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I echo UDScott's analysis. BD2412 T 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block

Propose an indefinite block (with the privilege to edit their own talk page as per usual) until they strike through personal attacks.

  • Support. Under all circumstances and in all contexts it is unacceptable for one editor to call another editor a Nazi, or for one editor to say they sincerely believe another editor resembles a Nazi, or for one editor to say another editor's edit behavior reminds them of an editor they thought a Nazi sympathizer. Incivility is a problem, the inability to recognize incivility is a serious problem, and the inability of an administrator to recognize their own incivility is a very serious problem. Inability to recognize blatant incivility in one's own comments is a competency issue and a disqualifier from editing privileges. JessRek6 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As I have to some extent already demonstrated with several responses in recent days these allegations are clearly FALSE, and appear to me to be maliciously contrived slanders, and very misleading statements to support such slanders, on the part of JessRek6, and later in the day, after I return from a necessary excursion, I am willing to provide further elaborations more clearly proving them to be. I do NOT have time to do that right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
  • Opposed (as the apparent target of this "proposed action"). In my initial very rushed reading and response, earlier, it was evident by placement that these accusative assertions were directed towards me, but on examining them further I realize that though there are actually severe allegations apparently indicated here, presently there is nearly as much a deficiency of clear identifications made in this series of misleading statements as there is a deficiency of truth and accuracy in many of them, as regards me.
A summary of the 3 sentences which currently exist in the above "Support" assertions, by the person who proposed the block:
  1. Though some relatively reasonable sounding assertions exist in it, EVERY implicit allegation (to the extent they can be assumed to be directed towards me) in the first sentence of the above assertions is actually FALSE. There are some which might seem plausible to those who make only casual examination of the portions of some statements she has presented at times, but as stated, they are actually and literally FALSE. I have NEVER called her a Nazi, NEVER said I sincerely believe her to resemble a Nazi, and don’t believe I ever actually referred to ANYONE at all in these recent conversations as a Nazi sympathizer, and probably no one at all, ever on this wiki.
  2. In regard to her second sentence, I can actually AGREE with EVERY statement of it, but not the apparently intended targeting of some of them, for though incivility is definitely a problem, I perceive that rather than I (or any other admin), it is JessRek6 and her extreme accusations and apparently punitive aims which have increasingly demonstrated an actual tendency towards aggressive incivility — and her most extreme accusations seem to be slanderous FABRICATIONS she hopes at least some others will simply accept as if entirely fact.
  3. I would actually be more temperate and charitable than she is in her third sentence, for though I definitely do AGREE that "Inability to recognize blatant incivility in one's own comments is a competency issue" I would not permit merely that to serve as an absolute "disqualifier" in regard to her or anyone else retaining editing privileges. Only worse deficiencies of cognizance like blatant defiance after official warnings against trolling or such possible directives as to cease from repetitiously posting harassing accusations, derisions, slanders, or even implicitly extortionate demands to user's talk pages should merit a block.
I am presently confining myself here to direct rebuttals of a few assertions in these most recent allegations. Others might follow on my own talk pages within the next few days. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 23:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Your reasons are more important than your vote. JessRek6 (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think this page should start archiving itself. I can’t stand rolling the mouse that long. I think 2.1-3, 2.5-7, 2.9, 2.11, 2.13, and 2.15 sections should all be archived. Ideas? (Josephine W. Talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC))
Please start a separate thread for other topics. JessRek6 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed finding: comparing an editor to Nazis is a personal attack

Wikiquote:Policies and guidelines states:

The policies of Wikiquote's sister project, Wikipedia, usually apply equally well to Wikiquote.

Specifically, the following aspect of the civility policy of Wikipedia Wikipedia:No personal attacks also applies on Wikiquote:

What is considered to be a personal attack?

Comments? Wikiquote administrators, please weigh in. Thank you in advance. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that you HERE have entirely REPEATED a statement I responded to above, and since you did so, I repeat my response here also, to aid those who quite understandably are not inclined to read through this mass of contentions thoroughly:
It is YOU who have actually called another editor a "Nazi", and a "Nazi sympathizer" — and though I had many vigorous disputes with him, I believe I never called that editor either. It might seem very convenient and useful for YOU to do so and imply that I did — but such things simply were NOT done by me — and for you to continue to repeatedly imply or insist that it did, in regard to that other editor OR to you, despite the actual record clearly showing otherwise, as others who have sufficiently examined it now have several times indicated, and to seek ways for me to be penalized for what I actually did not say or do is simply the latest of your own very unjust and misleading personal attacks against me. YOU KEEP REPEATING SUCH THINGS AS I DID NOT SAY. You keep INVENTING new ways to imply that what was said is what you want to PORTRAY it to have been, and fiction follows fiction in the variations of such things as you say were said or implied — by such OTHER things as ALSO were NOT actually said. Please simply desist from this line of attack of me — it is taking up far too much of many peoples time, in responding to what are ultimately false and baseless assertions. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎
Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Recognizing VERY early on in the tenor of your first series of remarks on my page that you had apparent intentions of being deceptive in various ways, I archived my entire talk page in a way I had been neglecting to do for YEARS, clearing it of almost all other discussions to make way for what I anticipated might be extensive contentions, and they already have been to a FAR greater extent than I had even expected. That ENTIRE talk page currently provides a VERY extensive body of EVIDENCE of the apparent aims and actual falsehood of MANY of your statements, and especially the most extreme ones. Contentions against them have already consumed very much of my time in an extraordinarily busy period of URGENT activities I actually MUST completely attend to within the coming week, and whenever these current contentions finish I intend to archive all of them in a sub-page of my talk pages as a permanent record. As I now have many other things I must attend to today, I will be leaving soon, but I will be back within a few hours, and I hope that there will not be much more for me to address here today. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Please provide a very much more concise body of evidence of your claims. Such claims without diffs are just personal attacks. JessRek6 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That too is simply another FALSE and IRRATIONAL statement. For a slightly less concise response, see below, where I repeat the statement I make in bold here, in response to your repetition of the entire remark you made here. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. One editor comparing another to a Nazi is a personal attack. JessRek6 (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. These personal attacks must be struck as if they never existed. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please read the above remarks by myself and others more thoroughly: I am NOT the one making personal attacks here. She is repeatedly making FALSE and ultimately baseless claims by various distortions and misrepresentations of the actual FACTS of the matters, and when she BEGAN doing so, I several times asserted she was NOT assessing things truly or properly — and these remarks themselves she has quoted portions of to make them SEEM to indicate the exact OPPOSITE of what they truly declared. I hope that you will reconsider your remarks and strike them, and make a more informed and considerate decision. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 14:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
Provide diffs. JessRek6 (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
As I stated immediately above, I have made many accommodations to others who might wish to examine many of our recent discussions and your distortions and deceptions about many aspects of them, and presently my "ENTIRE talk page currently provides a VERY extensive body of EVIDENCE of the apparent aims and actual falsehood of MANY of your statements, and especially the most extreme ones." I do not expect most people to peruse it thoroughly but the evidence is copious. I will very soon be leaving, and this is probably my last remark until I return. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 16:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Please provide a very much more concise body of evidence of your claims. Such claims without diffs are just personal attacks. JessRek6 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
That too is simply another FALSE and IRRATIONAL statement (as I stated of its earlier iteration above). You apparently are are relying upon a dubious assumption that the more evidence provided, the more most people will avoid examining it in full, and thus the more it can be effectively ignored or denied relevance by those wishing to exploit understandable ignorance and common indifference. And also the unfortunately often more effective strategies of those who recognize that constant repetition of even blatantly false assertions can make them seem credible to many. Unfortunately for those who regularly seek to be deceptive, not all people are so easily duped, and sufficient numbers of people often DO examine matters sufficiently to see the copious evidence of the falsehoods and irrationality of many of such assertions and claims. On my talk page I actually do intend to produce far more succinct summaries of things to provide easier comprehension of the disputes currently upon it, probably with at least a few such "diffs" links as you repetitiously demand, as will counter many of your deceptive assertions, within the next week — but that will take time which I cannot entirely spare for at least the next few days, and I don’t intend to work on it extensively until AFTER many urgent tasks which MUST be finished within a few days are completed. That is about all I can reply at present, as I must be leaving in a few minutes, and will probably be gone for much of the day. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I...don't really at all understand why you are taking the time to copy and paste several pages of discussions on your talk page. These are all publicly available discussions. It's not as if you are transcribing the text of an email that the rest of us don't have access to. GMGtalk 12:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I am doing it quite aware that MOST people are NOT going to take the time to trace through all the "diffs" that have been or might be provided, and all the various pages JessRek6 has begun discussions on — and I intend to make sections for all these disputes available on ONE current page, and then eventually one archive page, for the people who do want to at least examine some of the various details, and check on the accuracy of various assertions made. As I stated above (before an edit conflict) I have to be leaving in a few minutes — and am a bit more rushed right now. So it goes Blessings. ~ ♌︎Kalki·⚓︎ 12:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC) + tweaks
I don't understand why on March 9, 2020 you used collapse templates to hide the two diffs supplied above [diff]. JessRek6 (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In that case, Support rescinded. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's drop it and get back to editing. I don't see anything constructive coming from this discussion, just acrimony. Let's be civil and constructive here: this is supposed to be fun. All the time everyone is spending here talking is time we aren't spending adding quotations to this directory. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:01, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I would support a community restriction on random SHOUTING in indeciferably FORMATTED comments. GMGtalk 16:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Administrator strike-through and warning

Propose administrator strike-through of personal attacks on the target talk page and an administrator warning to Kalki regarding our policy of no personal attacks.

Comments?

  • Support as second choice. JessRek6 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop

User:JessRek6, you have to stop this discursive pleading. The community here has given you plenty of opportunities to air your grievances and the more you post, the less support you have. I understand that things can get heated and all of us do or say things we sometimes regret but this incessant harping on this issue is frankly just a disruptive tempter tantrum. As someone who has been entrusted with helping manage this community, I don't see the value in these threads and I am letting you know that this needs to end. The administrators here do not have a consensus for your preferred action, we will not, and this post is just tiresome. I'm closing this entire discussion to anyone other than an admin for the purposes of reopening it with something new and constructive (seems doubtful): i.e. Non-admins, do not edit this discussion any further unless it is reopened by another admin. Please go back to actually editing the directory of quotations and let's leave this be. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree with Koavf. This has become overwrought. BD2412 T 19:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Blatant LTA vandal...

2601:81:C402:AD20:0:0:0:0/64 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) I request serious action be taken against this wanton vandal and its series of IP addresses. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Splitting a page

Hi all. 2 of the largest page in this wiki (Elvis Presley & Barack Obama) have a size of ~1.1Mb and ~900kb. I suggest splitting them up for readability purposes. Minorax (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Probably a good idea, especially for those who have limited internet access. Not sure what would be the best way to do it though. GMGtalk 17:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I would suggest splitting it the following ways
      • Elvis - A-M & N-Z
      • Obama - 2010-2014 & 2015-2019
    • Those sections to be taken out are relatively big enough to warrant a subpage. Minorax (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @GreenMeansGo: Shall I go ahead with it? Minorax (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It would not split the pages evenly, and large pages would remain, but it would provide a better representation of what was being sought to simply break out the sections "Quotes about Elvis" and "Quotes about Obama" into separate and prominently linked pages. The same strategy should probably also be applied to the current page for Donald Trump. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I mean, I don't have any privileged opinion, and I don't have an easy solution. Whatever the community is fine with. But I try to keep mobile editors in mind, as well as those with limited internet access, and these pages probably need some type of solution. GMGtalk 14:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Kalki, GreenMeansGo: Seems like removing the quotes about Person X is a better option. Also, maybe use Template:W on these pages instead of [[en:Page 1|Page 1]]? Although it seems redundant but it will reduce the page size. (see [16]). Minorax (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
      • If pages are going to be split, I definitely would prefer that they be split topically or chronologically, rather than by any alphabetical formula. BD2412 T 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Mario Loud 70

We have another persistent and unrepentant vandal on our hands, with sockpuppets to boot.

Mario Loud 70 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.190.1.253 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.189.228.28 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
Spongebob Loud 1999 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

I request serious action be taken against this vandal, and that all pages it vandalized receive indefinite protection. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Attention is required, as this vandal refuses to comply with the messages we sent to its talk page. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Christian M. (2016)

This user refuses to comply with Wikiquotes rules on quote limitations. His edits to The Lion King (2019 film) were not only vandalized, but they were also way beyond the limit of what Wikiquote allows for this film. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Attention required on IP vandal

86.173.7.223 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.145.71.176 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.146.109.104 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
86.176.136.204 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
210.55.77.59 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

Reverted several edits by the first IP today and found the others ones in the histories. Please review their activities and take necessary actions, thanks.--Tigerzeng (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like these are either stale or locked. The math works out in an unforunate way, that I won't get into publicly. GMGtalk 12:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Spamming. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like they may have given up a few minutes ago, but blocked for one day in case they've only gone to get a cup of tea. Looks like it is a mobile IP, so no surprises if they pop up under a different address. If so, we can look at running the numbers on a range block. GMGtalk 13:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong IP WHOIS (for Interface Administrators)

The WHOIS for IP editors on their contributions page is showing an outdated version of the WMF WHOIS page (that no longer works). I don't really know how to contact the interface administrators (I'm more familiar with the English Wikipedia)

The correct WHOIS gateway is located at https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=127.0.0.1.

Happy editing! Dibbydib (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done. Updated link at Template:Anontools/ipv4. (Version /ipv6 was already correct.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Trolling IP

2606:A000:FC11:7400:A8F3:5970:55F8:CF1E (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

According to this edit in which it claims that forging one's signature is not vandalism, (though we know it is; it does not even know how to spell DawgDeputy!) this trolling IP clearly refuses to comply with the rules. Strike its edits and ban this user. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for a month. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 02:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal on War crimes

We have an IP vandal removing sourced content in War crimes article. Can vandal be blocked or page protected? ~ Peter1c (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done GMGtalk 19:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, GreenMeansGo. ~ Peter1c (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo the IP vandal is warring again. Rupert Loup 01:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo: the IP vandal is here again. Rupert Loup 10:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
it is rupert who should be put on notice and not me. Having an external link to the Israel and Yemen conflict is pov pushing - since there are a lot of war crimes and only these two are singled out. --2001:8003:4085:8100:DDCC:A884:6F0C:1CBC 10:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The IP vandal is here again. Rupert Loup 09:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
rupert is at it once again. --2001:8003:4085:8100:BD79:8A8B:BA67:D1D8 10:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo can you do something about this vandal? Rupert Loup 10:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo, could you block rupert for his consistent vandalism and refusal to settle matters on talk pages, such as at Talk:Power. rupert has been blocked before. --2001:8003:4085:8100:BD79:8A8B:BA67:D1D8 10:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo and UDScott, the IP is already here again doing disruptive editing. Rupert Loup 19:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
the only person being disruptive is you rupert, with your constant pov pushing and your constant reverting of good edits. --1.136.106.94 23:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The IP is not being WQ:CIVIL and is accusing us of having an "agenda". Their POV warfare will continue indefinitely, as has been happening since years ago withouth any change, can the admins please put and end to this? Rupert Loup 00:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
as is the case with rupert, he is uncivil and condemns others as being uncivil! I used the talk page on pages such as egalitarianism and power, and rupert, not liking what I stated and being unable to argue against it, reverted my edits anyway. Just like you deleted Kalki's edits on purpose. --2001:8003:4085:8100:3161:911A:953C:8F41 11:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo: the vandal is again with their bad faith edits. Rupert Loup 09:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Offensive IPs

They constantly refuse to abide by the rules, and the edit summary shown here is among proof. I request indefinite protection of all articles it vandalized. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocking the IPs, protecting the one page where they all converged. Please discuss on talk if there are edit disputes. I have re-added the category. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Rather mundane edit warring

2001:8003:4085:8100:859f:c355:db9d:ce07 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log)

Rupert loup (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

These two are/were edit warring on three pages, Money, Capitalism, and Karl Marx on the same quote. It seems to be a matter on circumcision, and is probably the lamest edit war I've seen yet.

(some) of the edits: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Hope this gets fixed before the two clutter up RC for even longer. dibbydib (T · C) 07:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

After further investigation it is found that the 2001:8003:4085:8100:859F:C355:DB9D:CE07 user seems to be rather stubborn in edits, making over 50 unconstructive edits in under 3 hours. dibbydib (T · C) 09:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Loup?! You mean Rupert Loup. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Edited to fit dibbydib (T · C) 07:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

IP Vandal

2001:8003:4085:8100:559F:59D0:347F:2FAA/64 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log) IP editor is removing content from pages with no explanation. Operator873 (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for three days. He's definitely edit-warring but is an intelligible person with some rationale, not a flagrant troll or vandal. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the project." WQ:VANDAL. Good faith can't be assumed since this IP has disregarded deliberately the core principles and policies of Wikiquote by months now. "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." WQ:FAITH Deleting content and trying to censor other editors for months are not good-faith effort to improve the project. We already discussed this with the IP several times in several talk pages. Rupert Loup 09:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC) —This unsigned comment is by Rupert loup (talkcontribs) .
@Rupert loup: What do you want me to do with this information? —Justin (koavf)TCM 10:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Koavf: The warring IP came back with the warring. Rupert Loup 09:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
rupert is pov pushing. because my edits go against his agenda he is claiming I am being problematic. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CD3A:C5BA:71A3:D2BC 09:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Then why I didn't revert this edit, that edit doesn't go against my "agenda"? Rupert Loup 09:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
you tell me, your the one pov pushing. A simple search through your contributions shows how heavily pro-socialist/pro-leftist your edits are. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CD3A:C5BA:71A3:D2BC 09:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Did that edit is pro-socialist/pro-leftist? That's why I didn't revert it? Rupert Loup 09:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
can you say the same about your health care in the united states vandalism? stop reverting my notable edits there. stop edit warring. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CD3A:C5BA:71A3:D2BC 09:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
have you forgotten how you are trying to lie about the naxalites and you are trying to remove the terrorism label attached from them? --2001:8003:4085:8100:CD3A:C5BA:71A3:D2BC 09:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I already told you that is against WQ:NPOV, you keep warring and don't try to achieve consensus, you don't care Wikiquote norms and the project. Rupert Loup 09:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
and you have been told it is not against npov. the naxalites are a designated terrorist organisation. Its you who doesn't care about wikiquote norms and the project. --2001:8003:4085:8100:CD3A:C5BA:71A3:D2BC 09:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The only ones who told him were your sockpuppet IPs. In another word, you. Do refrain from pinning your actions on an innocent editor. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to {{Shortcut}}

Recently while creating shortcuts for Wikiquote, I noticed that the template {{Shortcut}} was unsupported of multiple shortcuts.

Here is the updated template, tweaked to fit: <div style="position: relative; top: -3em;">{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<span id="{{anchorencode:{{{1|}}}}}"></span> }}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<span id="{{anchorencode:{{{2|}}}}}"></span> }}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<span id="{{anchorencode:{{{3|}}}}}"></span> }}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<span id="{{anchorencode:{{{4|}}}}}"></span> }}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|<span id="{{anchorencode:{{{5|}}}}}"></span> }}</div> <table class="shortcutbox noprint" style="float: right; border: 1px solid #aaa; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; text-align: center;"><tr><th style="border: none; background: transparent;" class="plainlist"><!-- Adding the shortcut links: --><small>[[Wikipedia:Shortcut|Shortcut{{#if:{{{2|}}}|s}}]]: {{#if:{{{1|}}}|<ul><li> [[{{{1}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|<li> [[{{{2}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|<li> [[{{{3}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|<li> [[{{{4}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|<li> [[{{{5}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|<li> [[{{{6}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{7|}}}|<li> [[{{{7}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{8|}}}|<li> [[{{{8}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{9|}}}|<li> [[{{{9}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{10|}}}|<li> [[{{{10}}}]]</li> }}{{#if:{{{msg|}}}|<li> {{{msg}}}</li> }}</ul></small></th></tr></table>

Note: If this change goes through, template usage with links such as {{Shortcut|[[WQ:EXAMPLE]]}} will have to be changed to {{Shortcut|WQ:EXAMPLE}}.

Happy editing! dibbydib (T · C) 07:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Dibbydib: I moved this over and am in the midst of fixing the links through template usage. I think it would be best if there was no bullet if there is only one item. Can you make this change? ~riley (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Scratch that question.. I just realized that's pretty standard. That said, I have since made {{shortcut}} module friendly. ~riley (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@~riley: I dunno, bulletted lists don't go well with the text as it's centered. I don't know much lua as I'm more familiar with template syntax itself, but removing the bullets entirely should help. dibbydib (T · C) 05:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dibbydib: I agree - I'll play around and see what I can do. It's more a .css thing than lua but it's not cooperating with traditional .css ~riley (talk) 08:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 Y Done Bullets removed entirely per above. ~riley (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Community Ban disclosure

Hi! My name is Technoquat. I am new to Wikiquote. I was active on Wikipedia, but I was subject to a 'community ban' after a persistant trolling campaign in the early 2010s. My community ban disclosure is here.

I have turned over a new leaf and now I am not a troll or a vandal. Please give me a second chance. --Technoquat Quotation (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Technoquat Quotation. Our various sister projects, such as Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikibooks or Wikivoyage, are all stand-alone communities, and have no oversight of the governance of one another. I'm afraid you will have to request an unblock at the English Wikipedia. You can do so by following the instructions at w:Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. GMGtalk 21:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo: see this. It seems that this user is a vandal Rupert Loup 21:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
More vandalism Rupert Loup 21:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I have done an permanent block on this account, as a trolling and vandalism only account of a long term abuser of wiki accounts. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 21:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Well that escalated quickly. GMGtalk 00:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Page protection: Naxalite

Requesting page protection of Naxalite due to edit warring. ~riley (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • My request for a short global IP block has been accepted - 45 reverts across 3 pages couldn't continue. ~riley (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
~riley: The IP came back rambling about Obama and trying to push non quotable snips from Fox News. Rupert Loup 04:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Riley, I am not " rambling" about Obama. On the page World Health Organization, there is a note under a Donald Trump quote stating that Trump said something different about China months prior. I have stated that if wikiquotes is now in the habit of adding addendums of "contradictions" that people have said, why is there no such note on Obama's wikiquote page, since Obama said that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" in regards to Obamacare, and that was false! --2001:8003:4085:8100:989E:A97D:F2C6:A1A7 04:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I have asked rupert to take it to the talk page (as can be seen on my edit summaries) and he all but refuses to do so. He briefly goes to the talk page and then stays far away from it. --2001:8003:4085:8100:989E:A97D:F2C6:A1A7 04:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

User talk:~riley

Hi. Consider protecting User talk:~riley due to ongoing vandalism. -- Tegel (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Y Done for one month. ~riley (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello riley, could you weigh in on the talk page of naxalite and colonialism for me? I would like a few other opinions, and I cant ask you on your talk page because it is locked. --2001:8003:4085:8100:1551:D6CF:22D5:8411 08:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Ongoing edit wars with these two users on the following pages:

Edit warring is not productive and can result in a partial or sitewide block. If you need to revert each other more than once, please take to the talk page. If you would like a third party opinion or a mediator, please let me know. @DawgDeputy: Please provide a specific edit summary when undoing an edit. "Undo vandalism" is only appropriate for blatant vandalism; use normal undo for controversial edits and explain why the edit needs to be removed. ~riley (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The other edit-warring party's edits were completely wrong. They clearly did not match the films. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Wikiquote:Manual of style#Spelling style can be of help. Rupert Loup 14:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@DawgDeputy: Incorrect edits do not constitute vandalism. If this were vandalism, you should have reported the user multiple times at WQ:VIP. Instead of continuing edit wars, you need to seek out an administrator. Reverting each other every other month is not productive. ~riley (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The other edit-warring party-- If he had done so repeatedly within a day, I would have reported him. I assumed that he had given up after that first edit months ago and read my message. It was not until just earlier this week he finally decided to revert to the improper edit. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Page unprotection: Nikita Khrushchev

This page was protected indefinitely from anonymous edits in Feb. 2015. There had been no edit activity for a month before protection, and the last reverted edit before that was in Sept. 2012, so the case for protection seems dubious. 73.71.251.64 19:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to unprotect this page, please? 73.71.251.64 04:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Problematic IP

152.26.177.38 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

This IP callously changed the date of the signature of a warning I gave another IP (with the same MO), as well as the title of the message from April 2020 to an egregious 2023, claiming it was, quote: "not British". DawgDeputy (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
And to add insult to injury, in The Green Mile (film), it censors profanity that was never censored to begin with. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Page protection: Motivation

Frequent spam and high visibility page so much it takes up 50% of the revisions on the page. Semi-protect? dibbydib (T · C) 06:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Rupert loup edit-warring

At 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India (historywatch)

and at Human Rights Watch (historywatch)

Rupert loup (talk · contributions) has again been edit-warring again today, deleting quotes without explaining himself on the talkpage before edit-warring.

He was told just 5 days ago by an admin that "If you need to revert more than once, turn to the discussion page and keep discussing until it is resolved."

I have tried to discuss with him on the talkpage, but this edit-warring makes it very difficult to edit Wikiquote. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't broke the 3 revert rule. Try to engage in the talk page instead of reverting, and follow the WQ policies about consensus. Rupert Loup 21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You don't have to break the 3 revert rule to be edit warring. That said, I'd like to see the diffs that დამოკიდებულება characterizes as such. BD2412 T 23:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems we may have reached a consensus now. The reverts were 1 2 and 1 2 3. Here I was reverted after just one minute, claiming there was no new comment on the talkpage, because he couldn't wait one single minute to read my talkpage comment. But it seems solved now as there seems to be a consensus now.
The 3 revert rule is mentioned. But where are the rules about this written down on wikiquote? --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Old hoax page that I can't edit for VFD

User:JohnBompordic654/mixing-sailors.js is a SPA joke page from 2018, repeating a school trope from 2015 in Wikipedia (see w:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Mystery_of_the_Mixing_Sailors). Please would someone speedily delete it? Fayenatic london (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

  •  Y Done, thanks. BD2412 T 15:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete Spam Page

Akshay Makadiya Delete this page. Spam and Self advertise. not notably. 2405:205:140A:A22A:C09A:C15F:44BB:314 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

rupert loup

rupert is vandalising and edit warring naxalite, colonialism, World Health Organization, and Coronavirus disease 2019. I have taken the issues to the talk page but he refuses to stop edit warring and he does not wait for consensus and he does not make any good points for his case. --2001:8003:4085:8100:989E:A97D:F2C6:A1A7 04:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Both users blocked. Rupert has been previously warned and blocked for edit warring while the IP has had multiple blocks. Right or wrong, endless reverting across multiple pages is disruptive and accomplishes nothing. ~riley (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
~riley: the IP came back with the hounding and the disruptive editing. Also, TVEBOR is a sock alt and is being used to manufacture support: [23][24], [25][26], [27][28], [29][30], [31][32], [33][34], [35][36], [37][38]. Rupert Loup 12:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The sock was created short after Peter1 told that they should create an account. And the first thing that the account did after their creation was to revert Peter1's edits. Rupert Loup 11:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • ~riley: also keeps warring and breaking the 3 revert rule no matter what. As you can see here. Rupert Loup 09:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I cant help but notice that you were reverting my edits until you disappeared and your friend here starting reverting the very same edits you were only recently reverting. Pretty suspicious. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 09:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
3 revert rules are enforced here now, I will let admins take care of this. @GreenMeansGo: @Kalki:
Warring in articles: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] and [46]. Rupert Loup 10:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
take it to the talk pages to justify your edits. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 10:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

As I have listed below under the header rupert loup is edit warring and pov pushing again, rupert loup is edit warring and pov pushing again. in the edit summaries here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, I have explained my edits are asked rupert loup to justify his and rupert has decided instead to edit war. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

rupert loup is edit warring and pov pushing again

rupert loup is edit warring and pov pushing again. in the edit summaries here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, I have explained my edits are asked rupert loup to justify his and rupert has decided instead to edit war. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 09:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have asked him on his talk page to cease and desist edit warring and to take it to the talk page but he has refused to do so thus far. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 09:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Another problematic IP

2606:A000:FC11:7400:1C6D:2125:B770:4042 (talk · contributions) This IP accuses me of being a "fascist", yet does not understand the rules around here.

Furthermore, it recently attempted to remove this report and accused me of lying. It has no solid evidence. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
This IP has been temporarily blocked as another iteration of a long-term troll and pattern-vandal. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 23:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Unprotection: Nikita Khrushchev

I would like to make some small additions to the misattributed quote section of Nikita Khrushchev, but it was protected indefinitely from anonymous edits five years ago with the generic reason "LTA." The administrator who protected it has been inactive for four years and it's not clear from the page history just what abuse he was referring to that made protection necessary at that moment. It's my understanding that wiki articles should be protected only to the extent necessary to enforce other policies. Can this page be unprotected, please? If not, at least offer a sentence or two of explanation. 73.71.251.64 20:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done Seems reasonable. Thanks/спаси́бо, comrade. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for AutoWikiBrowser permissions

Heyo - so I'm usually active on enwiki but am edging my way along to this project. I'm going to need (if I don't want to go insane) permissions to AutoWikiBrowser to add templates to categories as I have done before manually (i.e. Template:1980s films onto Category:1984 films). I know how to use the software and already have permissions on enwiki, so I know what I'm getting myself into. It'll help a ton.

Happy editing! dibbydib (T · C) Project Stub 08:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Is Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker a sockpuppet for rupert loup?

Looking at these edits here, its very odd that this account made a few edits in december 2019, then all of a sudden starts making edits defending rupert loup in this month all of a sudden. Very suspicious. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 09:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't have an eligible reason to blame an another user. You've tried to vandalizing pages. The only thing what I try is fighting vandalism and reverting your vandalism. Please stop with requests like this, IP user. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not vandalising pages, I have added (what I believe to be) relevent content and removed (what I believe to be) irrelevent content. If there are disagreements I have stated in the edit summaries that any disagreements should be sorted out in the talk pages. And it is very suspicious that your only edits are from december 2019 and then all of a sudden you have started editing recently this month, and in favour or rupert loup by restoring his edits all of a sudden. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 09:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You're trying again to blame me of abusing sockpuppets. I don't read any eligible reason to do that. But, don't you have read NAP? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
You have called me a long term abuser on Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. Have you looked at NAP? --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 09:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Many guidelines are not similar, but they are to easy to compare. I know I couldn't give an answer what you suspected, but this is truth.
Further, I'll request you (again) to not blaming users without a good reason because it's:
A) Not civil;
B) Harmful.
I know you are disagreed about the reverts, but what you do is not the way to resolve conflicts. Please use the talk page. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Taking it to the talk page is good advice, I hope you take it. Let me know why you want to add these quotes/remove these quotes on the talk page. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:348E:D0C4:E759:8AD0 10:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

No, what I've tried to say is: Using this page to resolve conflicts is not the way to do that. And why I suggest to use the talk page is, is that a talk page can be used to resolve conflicts. If you don't want to be blocked (again), please follow the next steps:

A) So what I've already said: use the talk page to talk about the reverted edits. This is also the way to resolve conflicts;
B) If 2 or more users revert your edits, don't blame them directly with abusing multiple accounts or sockpuppets;
C) Personal attacks on discussion pages and/or in edit summaries are not constructive. Try to avoid them.

Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 10:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  • This accusation is unfounded; there is no behavioural evidence to suggest these users are engaging in sockpuppetry. IP edits reverting registered users and removing or adding large amounts of content commonly show up in anti-vandalism feeds and are seen by dozens of global users. It is not suspicious that Nieuwsgierige came across your edits. Please do not push this discussion further. ~riley (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Harassment and Edit warring by User:DawgDeputy

Edit Summaries used in the above reverts.
  • [52] "Undo revision 2795669 by Pratap Pandit (talk) Again, bias."
  • [53] "Undo revision 2795736 by Pratap Pandit (talk) You act as if you make the rules. You do not. Stop impersonating administrators or just stop editing/bullying all together."
  • [54] "Undo revision 2795746 by Pratap Pandit (talk) Watch your language, and stop impersonating admins."
  • Diffs of edit warring and removing my comment on another user's talk page [55] [56] [57]
  • Diffs of edit warring on this noticeboard to refactor my comment [58] [59] [60]
  • Editing my comments [61], [62]
  • Falsely accusing me of harrassment [63] [64] [65] [66]
  • Blockshopping on 7 different Administrator's talk page, even though a report is already posted here. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]
Content from my user that this user DawgDeputy is repeatedly removing.
Copied from Wikiquote:Wikiquote Point #3
Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people.

Can someone ask DawgDeputy to stop removing content from my user page or my comments from another user's talk page. I have posted on his talk page but he is removing my comments and also removing my comments from another user's talk page. He isn't responding why he is doing this. And in his edit summary he said "This talk page is not the place for your bias". So may be this page is the right place to discuss his actions. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not a vandal. I am clearly trying to stop this user from spreading its bias all over. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Then , please explain why you are removing text from my user page. Stop doing that. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Did you not read the edit summaries? It sums it up perfectly. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop removing text from my userpage. There is nothing wrong with that line. You are not an admin. And I have no clue why you are doing this. Please find someone else and stop harassing me by removing content from my user page. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with it. That user page is full of nonsense, making it seem as if you make the rules around here. You are not an administrator, either. I am not harassing anyone. You are harassing us. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I disagree with your observation that my "user page is full of nonsense". For everyone's reference, I have copy posted my entire userpage below for the administrator to review. I have no clue what is nonsense on this. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Content from my user that this user DawgDeputy is repeatedly removing.
Copied from Wikiquote:Wikiquote Point #3
Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people.
You admitted you copied it from Wikiquote:Wikiquote Point #3. It would be wise to not to copy another's work. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have copied it from Wikiquote. I had even attributed this in my edit summary. This is not illegal and certainly not nonsense of any kind. Now please stop removing that from my talk page and let an admin judge this case. Stop messing with my comments and my comments or headers. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
But you still acted as if you were an administrator, which we know you are not. That is not only lack of originality, but also impersonating an administrator. This report should be null and void. It is clearly an effort to stop users from defending Rupert loup, who has constantly been harassed by you, who fails to provide sufficient evidence against him. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Where did I act as an administrator? I am shocked. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It looked as if you were making the rules. Quote: "We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable." DawgDeputy (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Holy cow Batman, that is the exact wording used in Wikiquote:Wikiquote. Go ask on its talk page if you are offended by that wording. Again how is my user page nonsense ? And why are you edit warring to add a deletion notice. ? And stop editing my comments, you are not allowed to do that. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not offensive. It is harassment, and lacks originality, considering it was not your quote. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I had attributed in clear words that this is copied from Wikiquote:Wikiquote. Both in edit summary as well as the top of the page. Stop harassing me and stop removing the word harassment from this section's header. Let an admin judge this. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Had you not copied that quote in the first place instead of making original content, none of this would have happened. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Let me repeat, I have done nothing illegal or wrong by copying a piece of line that I repeatedly need to refer to. You seem to think otherwise and we diagree on this. Now stop removing my lines and let an admin handle this. Bye. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It would be best not to mislead users into thinking you are an admin and to just make original content on your user page, or no content at all. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I have never said I am an admin. If you believe something, that is "your belief". You cannot harass someone by your unfounded belief. Please stop removing the word harassment from this thread. That is my complaint. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Admin Ningauble has now removed DawgDeputy's message from my User page, with the edit summary "Undo revisions by DawgDeputy (talk) – do not harass legitimate user page", I express my thanks to Ningauble.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate the fact that my userpage is no longer vandalized, My comment on the other user's talk page have still not been restored. Moreover, DawgDeputy's edit summary in this edit where he says, "Just stop editing all together." is a clear confirmation of harassment and bullying by DawgDeputy, and an attempt to force me to stop editing. This still needs to be addressed. So I am still looking for an admin's help on this thread.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Considering the fact that you are also a sockpuppet (and there are at least five others, according to dibbydib in my report against you) of BabbarJatt on enwiki, it would be wise to simmer down on these egregious reports. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread is about your actions, you can discuss my edits in the other thread that you started in retaliation. Regarding this thread As I see it, you have still not restored my comments on the other user's talk page [74] [75] [76], nor have you apologized for edit warring and continuously harassing me. You are not absolved of any egregious act that was pointed, on this thread. All the concerns I pointed above are still valid and actionable by an admin. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing to apologize for, because I harassed no one, and you were the one who started the edit wars in the first place. We were clearly trying to stop you from evading your Wikipedia block and taking your frustrations out on Wikiquote. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If you were not harassing me then explain why Admin Ningauble reverted you and removed DawgDeputy's message from my User page, with the edit summary "Undo revisions by DawgDeputy (talk) – do not harass legitimate user page" ? Having a content dispute is not a crime, I immediately started talk page discussion threads for those disputes. You admit, in this comment of yours where you say " We were clearly trying to stop you ... ". So you now openly accept that you were working in connivance with Rupert loup and დამოკიდებულება to gang up on me and harass me to stop me editing on Wikiquote. This is a serious issue and this harassment gang needs to be brought to an end. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You left out "from evading your Wikipedia block and taking your frustrations out on Wikiquote", the very reason you were reported in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread is about your edits not mine. This is Wikiquote, repeatedly talking about Wikipedia in an attempt to distract this thread is not going to help you evade from accountability of your harassment and false accusations.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there nothing to convince you to strike off this report that had been null and void from the very beginning? DawgDeputy (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You have not self reverted to restore my comments that you [removed from Rupert loup's page, nor have you apologized for ganging up with others for harassing me. So there is no reason for me to strike off this report. I have provided all the evidence and I stand by my report. Let an admin see this and decide what needs to be done. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You provided nothing sufficient or material, whereas we provided plenty of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which you continuously fail to refute. And again, we cannot apologize for something we did not do. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Sincerely hoping that an admin takes care of this "We" group of harassers. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Leonsupporter

Leonsupporter (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

Kill-all-uglies (historywatch)


Edit warring while removing speedy deletion templates, undisclosed COI (assumed, article is about a guy named Leon, user's called Leonsupporter) It's best to delete the page, too. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

"Undisclosed COI" is inaccurate. My username was meant to be ironic as a joke. I really dislike Leon. This username is an in-joke between me and some friends of mine. I admit my username was a bad choice on my part in retrospect. --Leonsupporter (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It is still an unremarkable subject and/or POV, leave it for any admins to judge. Don't delete SD templates :| dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you not allowed to delete SD templates at all then? Even if they're completely inaccurate? I would hardly call the page I made an "attack page", although the unremarkable subject aspect is more here or there, I admit. That being said, he's pretty infamous in certain online circles and he's guilty of manslaughter, and violating UK hate laws. And child pornography too, for that matter. --Leonsupporter (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
A google search provides no reliable indication of any substantial notability of this person or any of the claims about this person.
Whatever the facts related to the individual, I would call the page an apparent promotion of very obscure ugly-minded pissant who should remain obscure in his pissant attacks upon general Humanity, and such promotion of the ugly-minded statements posted to it to be an attack page upon general human decency — and I have thus deleted it. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 23:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. It wasn't my intention to promote him or his statements, but I do understand nevertheless. --Leonsupporter (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Pratap Pandit

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) has been edit warring across some articles. I was asked to report it here.

Last month he began by removing quotes he didn't like, claiming they are non-notable, are not "enduring" (even though we are talking about a current event, so "enduring" cannot be measured in any case). However, they were from a very notable journalist, who furthermore is also well known for his stance on this particular lynching. The journalist was also very critical of the police handling of the case and has made himself many enemies due to his reporting. As such, the quote is not just pithy, eloquent, and poignant, but also represents a particular perspective on the lynching.

We are also talking about an ongoing lynching incident. The lynching is highly controversial and political, with developments still ongoing, claims of media bias and police bias, and just now the lawyer of one of the victims in the killings was killed in a car accident.

The rule is to move quotes to the talkpage, not just remove them but Pratap has even deleted ("censored") the same quotes on the talkpage.

As pointed out by Dibbydib already, Pratap also made blatantly false accusations against me (claiming it was I who was removing quotes, when all I did was reverting his edit that simultaneously deleted quotes while adding his quotes in the same edit).

Pratap Pandit (talk · contributions) has been on a campaign to shut down and censor a perspective on this lynching since last month. He did the same at wikipedia with success (?), but was now blocked on wikipedia. He has been the most active editor on wikipedia about this lynching before getting blocked.

Pratap has also been edit-warring with Rupert at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC

Most of the accusations above are useless bickering. Serious comments meriting a response have been replied at the appropriate threads on the talk page of these 2 pages. On the accusations of edit warring on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India, you should understand that you are not supposed to restore Content that is copyright violation. If you think I have mistaken then let another editor judge. By repeatedly re-adding the disputed content that is also blatant copyright violation, you are edit warring and making copyright violations. That is 2 offence at the same time. Regarding Arnab's comment I would like to see that evidence how those comment have achieved fame and deserve to be added to this article. I haven't found any and you have not produced any either. Now instead of establishing on the article talk page first how these comments / rants/ libel by Arnab Goswami against someone qualifies as "has achieved fame", this user has decided to attempt getting the other editor blocked by hook or by crook. I would like to note that Arnab Goswami has been sued in India for his libelous claims. So much for yellow journalism. The issue on Wikipedia is none of your business and I feel there is no need to discuss it here on Wikiquote. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Please move this discussion to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Y Done Discussion has been moved to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard--Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Pratap Pandit & დამოკიდებულება edit dispute

@დამოკიდებულება, Pratap Pandit:

There has recently been an edit dispute between these two contributors recently. I've put the thread from Pratap's talk page here for conveniance.

There are current concerns over first notability, and then copyright infringement at 2020 Palghar mob lynching and 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. I currently have my suspicions on Pratap who first removes a few quotes based on "notability" (quotability), then changes it later to "unreliable source" when said source (MEMRI) has been used plenty of other occasions on Wikiquote, plus the fact that MEMRI didn't even publish the quote. The quote was actually first published at New Age Islam and then republished by MEMRI.

This notion of an "unreliable source" was tried by Pratap, and links to this page, of which is of dubious origin, is a wiki, plus almost all the references for the page link to the MEMRI site itself. Also, the last time this page was edited was in 2012, and their logo is sketchy as hell. This is 100% a conspiracy theory website and shouldn't be cited to resolve a dispute.

Then, Pratap Pandit later claimed it also to be a copyright infringement in "Please do not add entire paragraphs from copyrighted websites. These are not quotes.". I don't know what exactly to say of this since it's literally a quote in the website itself, and would have been fine to add in, I might leave this here.

These are sensitive topics and I fear that POV has played a part in this. I advise you two to sort this stuff out. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you dibbydib for commenting.
The case at 2020 Palghar mob lynching is very easy:
  1. Arnab is a very notable journalist.
  2. He is known for having been very vocal (and some say, controversial) about the case. So he for sure deserves a quote about this lynching case. His voice is a unique perspective on this lynching.
  3. Furthermore, Arnab's reporting had political and even physical consquences. As widely reported, Arnab and his wife were physically attacked in Mumbai while driving in their car by some leaders of the local youth Congress party.[77]
  4. And last but not least, the quotes are also pithy and eloquent.
All this makes it clear that a quote of Arnab is deserved. One could of course still discuss which quotes of Arnab to include. See also my comments above at Wikiquote:Village_pump#User:Pratap_Pandit.
I don't know if there has been a coverup in this lynching case, as some claim, but what I do know is that the way that facts and quotes have been removed on wikiquote (and wikipedia) has all the signs of a "coverup". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@დამოკიდებულება: Oh, that changes everything. I've also noticed Pratap was blocked for sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia.
Users Cedix, Pratap Pandit, Bajrang Ram, TedCarl, Apyn, and Mr.Regalis (from enwiki) were proven to be the same user from this sockpuppet investigation. If you see two or more of these accounts contributing, hit up AN.
I also looked through Pratap Pandit's contributions and found that the user was most likely a single-purpose account. All signs point to NOTHERE. Will put on AN if this escalated. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you think I have violated any rule, you are free to report me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • regarding MEMRI here is what Media Bias Fact Check says about them. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks."
Do you still need more evidence that MEMRI is a shitty propaganda site and not a reliable source ? If a shitty propaganda site is all this user can find to support a random comment on the internet then that is a good indication of that random quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
These issues are already discussed at WQ:AN (After User:Butwhatdoiknow asked to move it to WQ:AN) so I will not participate here. If you read the threads at WQ:AN , it would be clear to you. The only diffs worth looking at in their report are the ones from Wikiquote, and they are all from content disputes being discussed on the respective talk page. After failing to find any evidence of policy violation against me, these members of the "We group" have added diffs of content dispute, hoping to mislead others into thinking that this is some kind of offence to have a content dispute and discuss it on the talk page. In fact User:Dibbydib himself is a big part of the problem here. While the content dispute was ongoing, it was Dibbydib who first escalated this by asking to take "Content dispute" to Village pump. And in his comment above he accusing me of reporting the other editor's behavior. Dibbydib is now turning a blind eye towards all the disruption and harassment against me and is siding with the other harassers in trying to bludgeon me on the AN thread. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to look at things from a neutral perspective. Reading the threads on that page, it would be clear to anyone, that they have no evidence for violation of any policy against me. It seems this group is hoping for sanctions based on "imaginary violations" and content disputes. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 Y Done Discussion has been moved to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Admin review of edit warring & subsequent blocks

After wading in a bit into a recent edit war that seemed to dominate the site for a while, I made some comments and edits to try to bring back some balance to the situation. After I believed that the edit warring was continuing in one form or another, I then blocked the two participants for 2 days to allow a cooling off period. Both have questioned those blocks (one more strongly than the other). As I am of course not unbiased, I ask that one of my fellow admins review the situation and my actions to determine if the blocks were warranted (and further, how the overall situation might be resolved). Please refer to the following talk pages for more info: User talk:Pratap Pandit and User talk:Rupert loup. I encourage anyone looking into this to review the entire recent edit history of both users. Thank you. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(not an admin, of course) but this will probably be the last time I dabble in this topic.
@UDScott: This whole debacle did not just include two editors, somewhere between 3-6 were involved in the whole dispute. Heck, at one point I even took notice of the whole matter and there was a lot of toxicity in the air when I put in my two cents, which lead to a truckload of pings and arguments, and even messages from a certain user that I was leading a "campaign of harassment".
So, a special thanks to you for settling this whole thing, though I assume it'll be back soon, so keep an eye or two on this thread.
You can see all this toxicity buried somewhere on the AN thread, and someone even took it to my talk page.
Also, I've discovered a rather lovely global version of Twinkle [78] check it out if you want, it helps me a lot. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 07:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott: I support you. I also don't have the bandwidth to deal with all of the sniping on this page. Edit wars should stop and if there needs to be a CU, we should ask Stewards. Thanks for making the effort. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, Justin both of you claim that you lacked the time to review the case, yet both agree that a 2 day block was appropriate. How is it justified for a single revert, that I made to restore a maintenance template, that too on an article talk page ? Looks very harsh to me, especially when we have a policy of 3RR, and were discussing instead of futher reverting. If the 2 admins are trying to send some sort of subtle message through the block, then they should be open about it. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
First, let me say that I did not claim to have no time to review the case - my statement was that it had become so convoluted that it was hard to follow - as well as it seems that the conversation kept going even as I tried to intervene. I just couldn't keep up with it. Second, I am not trying to send any "subtle message" - I merely wish for the edit warring to end so that I could focus on the many other tasks that are needed to improve the site. But for now, I have asked for others to review the situation, since both parties objected to my actions. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
UDScott, ok, if something is hard to follow, the normal thing to do is to ask questions and seek clarifications, not issue blocks. Did you miss this talk page comment that I had made instead of continuing the edit warring ? Had the 2 users not been discussing and instead continuing with the reverts, then you could have used the excuse that you "merely wish for the edit warring to end", but in this case after 1 revert it had already stopped. There was no 3RR violation, there was no ongoing revert war and hence no urgency to block. Yet you proceeded to block, that too for 2 days. Refused to unblock and looked sideways on other admins, despite the unblock request (with guarantee that it would not be repeated). I am sorry and disappointed to say, but all these are clear signs of blatant admin high handedness and a trigger happy (block happy ?) adminship. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Admin response to Admin request on Admin noticeboard – I support the 2 day blocks, being long enough to catch someone's attention but not so long as to cause lasting harm. The sheer quantity of vituperative "discussion" on this board, notwithstanding any quibbles about the quantity or timing of reverts, is ample indication of the need for involved users to reconsider the approach. Disruption in general is something that Wikiquote administrators have considerable latitude to address as they see fit.

On a directly related note, I am personally exasperated with the recent addition of mass quantities of quotations relating to socio/political and/or ethnic/religious disputations and polemics, much of which does not impress me with its timeless quotability but looks to me more like one of those dark corners of the web. I hope that cooler heads will prevail, and the quality will eventually be cleaned up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)