Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037

User:Babe kebab

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion seems to have devolved into a number of different disputes and arguments. It was requested that a local admin close the discussion, so here goes:

• The account "Risto hot sir" has been/is currently globally locked. Steward Wim b decided to lock the account on 20 August 2019, citing "crosswiki abuse". Regardless of the merits of the original lock, the editor has continued to try and edit different WMF projects via alternate accounts or from IPs. They are now considered a long term abuser (LTA) due primarily to the evasions, rather than any original conduct
• The account "Babe kebab" appears to have been controlled by the same editor, and has been locked by steward Tks4Fish for "Long-term abuse"
• As explained at, eg, m:Global locks, global locks are (as the name suggests) global - an account that has been locked cannot be used to edit *any* WMF project, including the English Wikiquote
• There was a question - why can't this user continue to contribute here on the English Wikiquote? Because any such edits would be evading the global lock, and *stewards* would likely globally lock any account used, and/or globally block any ip used
• If you want to allow this user to edit, the proper channel is to request that the original account be unlocked. Any discussion *here* of whether or not they *should* be allowed to edit is irrelevant, because stewards are the only ones that can unlock an account. Any issue of stewards failing to respond to an appeal in a timely manner should be taken up with stewards.

In short, edits made here on the English Wikiquote, even if they are constructive, that are made in evasion of a global lock, are improper. It is a content decision whether or not to revert solely due to the fact that the edits are being made by an LTA, and I'm not going to address that. But it is a user-management decision to lock the accounts used / globally block the ips used, and that latter decision is the purview of stewards. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

---

User:Sitush has left a note on me Wikipedia talk page asserting that User:Babe kebab is a "blatant Risto sock". This seems fairly plausible based on Babe kebab's brief edit history to this point. Any thoughts on this? BD2412 T 18:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The question is WHY Sitush & the gang wants to vandalize the project. I've made 120,000 useful edits - and nobody will revert 'em, because other people would have to add those again. I've done good work here, haven't I? Politics should stay off this wiki! A true detective wants to know the motives. Here some clues: "censorship", "India", investigation for "severe conducting problems" at Meta.--Babe kebab (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you're going to be blocked globally (again). You know better than to sock, so why don't you go back to your original account and appeal to be unblocked, rather than going through these machinations? BD2412 T 19:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

It's just waste of time. The stewards haven't answered in 15 months, so it's better to create new accounts to make the necessary edits - it doesn't matter who makes 'em. Besides it's fun to receive friendly welcoming messages. —This unsigned comment is by 80.223.94.56 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 December 2020 .

"Waste of time" That's plain pathetic on your end. It only goes you're an entitled twat who isn't willing to undergo the legwork and as WP tenets show, rebuilding reputation on one account is better than creating so many socks. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Eaglestorm. What's the point of contributing to Wikimedia at all if that's your opinion of it? BD2412 T 07:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I am with User:Babe kebab on this. IMIO the sockpuppet obsession has taken on a life of it own at enwiki. There are many good contributors on many wmf-projects who are accused of sockpuppeting when all they are doing is trying to continue contributing productively. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Why to contribute? To make articles better of course. "Reputation" means nothing. - It's OK if the LOCAL admins want to revert, but some global ones want just to show their power. In that case "no human has the right to obey" (Arendt). - The community should be worried about this: I was forbidden to link Indian related articles at en-wikipedia, and after I called it censorship I got hellhounds on my track.--80.223.94.56 14:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects have value because of their rules and community adherence to them, not despite these things. If you were "forbidden" to do something, there is assuredly a good reason for that, and you should abide by that until a contrary determination is made, and achieve change through discussion, not by pretending to be someone else until you get caught pretending. BD2412 T 17:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are the right person to discuss with those Hindu and Muslim extremists who have hated each other more than one thousand years.--80.223.94.56 01:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: you said: achieve change through discussion, but one cannot achieve change if one gets blocked for expressing one's views, or when one is under the impression that one will get blocked if they express their views. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. No one gets blocked merely for expressing their views. Editors get blocked for a wide range of behavioral issues - bullying, attacking, insulting, etc. - and calling those behaviors "expressing their views". BD2412 T 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412 you said: No one gets blocked merely for expressing their views. Is this your personal opinion, the wikiquote community consensus, or something else? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Blocking policy provides limitations to the circumstances for which an editor can be blocked. Merely expressing views isn't one of them. BD2412 T 07:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What if an administrator is a bully (in theory of course)? - Anyways, what the readers want isn't very important here, so it seems to be.--80.223.94.56 01:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There are processes to deal with that as well. Our processes are key to our project being of use to readers. BD2412 T 02:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Great principle! - but the reality is something else. Like told before, I used the official path to stewards, and haven't got reply in 15 months. Why?--80.223.94.56 01:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

My experience tells that admins can do whatever they want. Look at the editing history of the Dutch wikiquote: hardly anything but blocks! And this has lasted for years.--80.223.94.56 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

And there are lots of "preventive infinite blocks" - for me too - before one hasn't even edited. Is this what we deserve?--80.223.94.56 01:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Silence is golden?--80.223.94.56 01:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if he has been blocked on wikipedia (for it appears unclear reasons), why has he been blocked on WQ? This is an user who has made over 100,000 of very helpful edits and contributions to WQ. --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedians like Sitush are saying this user was blocked on wikipedia for bullying, hounding and personal attacks and for defamations and WP:BLP violations on WP:BLP pages. What were these personal attacks? @Ottawahitech:, you have more experience seeing his edits, can you share with us some of the examples of his bullying others and of his personal attacks by this user? Did you observe this user making personal attacks or bullying other users? --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's something to read: [1]--80.223.94.56 13:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC) - YaganZ is probably the only neutral person who really has researched the case.--80.223.94.56 13:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the information @80.223.94.56

I am new to the subject of global blocks (or is it locks?), so please bear with me. The link that you sent us to is on a talkpage of user:Wim b on the Meta-wiki. I assume Wim globally blocked User:Risto hot sir? I don't know what process is in place for globally locking wmf contributors, but I see that Wim is not an Administrator, but is a Steward. So I guess Stewards are the ones that decide if a user should be blocked on all wmf-sites?

If so, I believe Stewards are incredibly powerful users and would like to find out whether they are voted in by the community or simply appointed (by who?) Ottawahitech (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Stewards are incredibly powerful users but usually do what administrators suggest - when you look at the time the decision is made: no investigations. And it's very difficult to have contact with them, as I've showed.--80.223.94.56 01:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

How are users notified a discussion is taking place to globally block them? In other words which wmf-site is the notice posted to? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I found this post on Risto's usertalkpage, I think it demonstarates his intentions with regards to WQ? Thoughts? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Ottawahitech: for this information from @Spannerjam:s talkpage. I think what you said in your edit summaries was spot on:

Is Risto motivated to improve WQ?

risto spent his own money to purchase a book to help WQ , I assume

and Im repeating it here because some might not have seen it. Yes I think you are right it demonstarates his good intentions with regards to WQ. Have you seen my comment on Kalki's talkpage? --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 21:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have posted a notice on Wim b's talkpage letting him know about this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Wim b

I've locked Risto hot sir per request for crosswiki abuse. Imho a user blocked in 5 projects is clearly problematic, then evading the global lock through socks is also a way to make fun of the rules that the global community has set itself. I am sorry when I have to block a user who until the day before was an excellent user, but in this case I would not even know how to justify an unblock, but I'll write an email to the other stewards to inform them of this discussion and let's see what comes out. --Wim b 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sent on Saturday, wait if anyone is interested in attending. --Wim b 18:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping us updated @Wim b: I, for one, appreciate your continued attention to this issue. I don't know how COVID is affecting wiki activity this year, but I believe that in previous years traffic usually dries up during the last two weeks of December, but then picks up with renewed vigour come January. Please keep us posted on any developments.

And for the stats nuts around here, it appears there are now twice as many eyes on this notice board than on our main village pump (ask me how I know this if you are interested) Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

27 698 visitors per day on the main page last year, 7 744 in the last 90 days.--80.223.94.56 22:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

What really wonders many is WHY he was blocked? which policies did he violate? why was he blocked before going through dispute resolution? Wikiquote users would like to know which actual wikipedia policies he violated with which edit(s), and if the user went through dispute resolution before being blocked? I assume that this information is readily available and was consulted before blocking and can be shown here. --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is not clear why User:Risto hot sir was originally blocked on enwiki, and it is also not clear why this user(s) is now globally locked. Do globally locked users have to be blocked on all wmf-wikis? If so, why are we not involved in steward elections? The Stewards appear to be making decisions about global locks without a community discussion, apparently. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Ottawahitech new stewards are elected, and existing stewards require reconfirmation, every year since 2005. (Give or take a few months.) It can be found at M:Stewards/Elections. It generally runs Feb 8 through Feb 28. Alsee (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

English Wikiquote blocking policy regarding socks

I looked at the WQ blocking policy link provided by user:BD2412 above to try and figure out if User:Babe kebab should be blocked on this wmf-site. Here is the pertinent section of the blocking policy regarding socks (I think?):

Sysops may also block new user accounts that make lots of disruptive edits, for any length of time or permanently, at their discretion. Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikiquote policy should be blocked permanently. However, blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits. Reincarnations of blocked disruptive users will be reblocked if they continue being disruptive, or if they edit in a way which suggests they are likely to continue being disruptive—such as "YOU CANT BLOCK ME!!" or "JOIN ME IN MY FIGHT TO DESTROY WIKIQUOTE!!" Blocks under this provision are almost always controversial.

discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it OK to revert questions, like on the userpage of Vermont? -- 14:55, 1 February 2021‎ 86.115.119.192

In my opinion, backed up by no actual policy, guideline, or essay, is that a user control's that users talk page. If I'm right then it is okay for a user to revert a question posted their talk page. But another editor should not do that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What is a sock?

In order to have a productive discussionn we need IMIO to define what a sock is.

According to 2019:Research/Sockpuppet detection in the English Wikipedia:

Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one account on any social platform

Do you agree with this definition? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The whole point of having an account is to connect responsibility for edits with the specific editor. Where an individual edits from multiple accounts without disclosing the connection between them, this creates the potential for creating a false impression of the determinations of the community with respect to the conduct of the project. BD2412 T 03:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just found out that a new User I have communicated with is globally locked. I cannot find any discussion of this locking. All I see is the date of locking (2 December 2020), the USERID of the locking Steward, and the wmf-sites this User participated in. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk)

• @Ottawahitech: From what I have seen, and experienced first-hand years ago, stewards globally lock accounts with little or no critical thinking, simply following requests (sometimes raised by overzealous admins or other users with personal vendettas). Global locks are very difficult to appeal, at least without the help of other users. The users that are globally locked are not so much as notified, thus they cannot defend themselves prior to the global lock. Needless to say, this is a great injustice. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @DanielTom: Thanks for providing this interesting commentary, and for pinging me.

This is what users who actually looked into the block said :

I know Risto hot sir as a comprehensive contributor to (Latin Wikiquote). Especially his work on I consider as remarkable and very useful for the benefits of all Latin language Wikimedia projects. Therefore I can't understand, why his account is treated like those of evil spamming and vandalizing intruders, that cause damage to the Foundation's projects. After reading of Risto's permanent global lock, I did some research to understand what had happened, but I didn't find any behaviour that would have to be blamed on him and justified such a harsh treatment. Could you please point me to some facts, specifically, that show the "blatant crosswiki abuse"? Thank you.

Over the years I have crossed paths with Risto many times on the English and Italian Wikiquote and as far as I know it does not seem to me that he has done anything destructive. Where he makes inaccuracies, however, he willingly accepts corrections and cancellations and knows how to improve. Given that he has intervened on so many projects it is natural that he has had problems in someone, his problem is being too active, so to speak, but the global blockade seems to me an excessive measure.

From the viewpoint of Estonian Wikiquotes and Wikipedia, Risto hasn't done anything to deserve the block, hence I see no reason to block an active user from one project just because somebody on a completely different project hates them. And some people certainly have it in for them, because while there are articles about him in Finnish and Estonian Wikipedia, in both of which the local community has discussed their relevance and decided to let it be, some emissaries have been traipsing through, seeking for revenge, and demanding that the natives would delete the articles. That's certainly an interesting attitude.

This user has edited almost all wikis. There are hundreds or thousands of them. On some of these small wikis it is very easy to get blocked for some trivial thing. Once Risto got blocked on one small wiki, one can assume here, the next overzealous admin or other user with personal vendettas only had to say this user is already blocked at this small wiki and therefore he should be blocked on this wiki for some trivial thing too, and then he got another block on yet another wiki. And after 3 or 4 of such blocks he got locked.

As David Auerbach wrote in a well known article about wikis, the problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them, and Risto editing in hundreds of wikis increased the risk of this happening to him. This is what could happen to an user like Risto who edits hundreds of wikis. He only needs to have such a problem in one percent of the wikis he edits, to set in motion a chain reaction. --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• This doesn't really require a master's thesis. A sock is a user who is evading a block by using a different account, rather than going through the normal unblocking procedure. GMG^talk 23:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo, how do you know that all socks never tried to get unblocked? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

"The normal unblocking procedure" has lasted 16 months. "Hierarchy über alles?"--80.223.94.56 23:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@80.223.94.56: Are you saying that the average time for a blocked user to be unblocked is 16 months? If so, is that specuation? An average? A median? What is your source? thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Note: 80.223.94.56 has been blocked by a local WQ admin. It was my understanding based on a previous post by another local admin that

  No one gets blocked merely for expressing their views

  ??? Ottawahitech (talk)

It doesn't really matter whether you "tried to get unblocked". There is no "right to contribute". GMG^talk 00:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vermont

Okay. I don't exactly have the time to address the problems of every comment here, as that would take a while, but let me recap the Risto hot sir situation for everyone:

• Contributor on a handful of wikis, history of being highly obsessed with edit count (listing it manually on every user page on basically every wiki), and often unwilling to communicate constructively with others.
• One day, Risto decided to start adding images from one Wikiquote article onto Wikiquote articles (and some Wikipedia articles) with the same name in dozens of other languages.
• Many of these images either didn't exactly fit with the article (different language), and a lot of them actually included English captions on non-English projects.
• Myself, other global sysops, and local editors noticed these mass-additions and started removing the English captions. In some cases, Risto reverted our removals, re-adding the English captions.
• Risto was asked on some of these Wikiquotes, by local administrators, to stop. Risto refused on some, and on others openly challenged the local administrators in a hostile manner.
• After a short period of time, Risto was blocked on: the English Wikipedia, the Dutch Wikipedia, the Dutch Wikiquote, the Spanish Wikiquote, and the Simple English Wikipedia. On each of these projects you can see Risto's edits and talk pages for the specific conversations and problems that preceded their blocks.
• Risto continued adding images to many articles cross-wiki, seemingly with no purpose other than to increase their edit count. Fortunately, they stopped using English captions, but their edits remained questionable in terms of helpfulness.
• Of course, up to this point nothing necessitated a lock, as though there were blocks on multiple projects there was no specific cross-wiki abuse.
• This changed when Risto created a sockpuppet account to edit their userpages on wikis where they were blocked. In creating a sockpuppet account to evade blocks on multiple projects, that constituted cross-wiki abuse, and there was no option other than a global lock. You cannot be an active sockmaster on 5 wikis and a constructive editor elsewhere.
• After being locked, Risto started socking with IP addresses and other accounts, as well as leaving hostile comments to people he blames for the consequences of his cross-wiki abuse.
• At this point, nearly a year and a half since the account was locked, Risto is considered a long-term abuser on multiple projects, and their accounts are blocked and locked on sight.

For more detailed general information (and what is basically a timeline), you can see Risto's talk page on this project and the comments myself and others left in May 2019 and later, their Meta-Wiki edits and content about them (specifically the section(s) about them on the Stewards Noticeboard), and related pages on the specific wikis they are blocked on. This is an incredibly straightforward case. Currently, they have been engaged in block and lock evasion for well over a year. No appeal is reasonably possible so long as they continue to be an LTA. If you have any questions, please ping me and I will be happy to answer them. Best regards, Vermont (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vermont: Thanks for stepping forward to explain the point of view of (all?) Adminstrators and Stewards involved in the blocking and susequent global locking of User:Risto hot sir. I don't know about others, but I would like to see this user unblocked, so that they can answer these allegations. I don't believe it is a fair process otherwise. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

They are not allegations, they are facts. Risto even acknowledges both the original sockpuppet (which they used to edit wikis they were blocked on) and their continued socking, even participating in this discussion. The lock can be appealed by emailing the Stewards, but I highly doubt there is a chance of it being a successful appeal, especially considering the dozens of socks and continuing socking. Vermont (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Vermont for this information. However without any diffs it makes it impossible to follow and check, especially because the edits are scattered across half a dozen or more wikis. In addition you should also mention the name of the sockpuppet account Risto used "to edit their userpages on wikis where they were blocked". --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 12:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vermont: I have a question regarding your opening comment where you said this about User: Risto hot sir:

history of being highly obsessed with edit count

.

This is my question: do you believe that Users in general should limit the number of edits they make? I believe such sentiments are usually expressed by patrollers who on enwiki are a group of editors "who check the of various articles for inappropriate edits" (I don't know if wikiquote has a similar group of editors checking special:Recentchanges) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ottawahitech! I am not saying users should limit their edits; rather, I was implying that the general correlation of editcountitis and self-importance applies here. Generally, users so concerned with their outward appearance in edit count are less concerned with simply improving the project. One of Risto’s initial defenses for their disruptive image and caption adding was that a small percentage of their edits were contested; yes, only a few hundred out thousands, but for obvious reasons Risto’s logic in that is flawed. Risto’s first sock was created to update their edit count figures on user pages at wikis they were blocked on. Hope this helps, Vermont (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't a sock but the other username mentioned long before the block. It had to be created due to vandalism. It wasn't blocked, and the user pages had false information. Is it really a sin to correct own user pages?--80.223.94.56 22:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Many times have I already told that I've emailed the Stewards 16 months ago. No answer. But let's look closer at the beginning: - The Dutch wikiquote seems to want to block as many users as possible (see the editing history). The reason is often "a typical name of a spammer". - The Dutch wikipedia blocked me after a couple of contributions. "Don't bite the newcomers"? - Vermont blocked me at Simple English wikipedia without me certainly having done anything disruptive there. - At Spanish wikiquote I already wrote "adios!" politely - and got blocked immediately. - At English wikipedia the keyword was "censorship". People who want to prevent folks to read other opinions than theirs don't like that word. - Vermont even thanked me for not copying English texts of images anymore. After that I've added thousands of images without revertings. - "Wanting to increase edit counts" is ridiculous. Nobody would even know the amount unless some eager detectives had drawn them together. So admins "with severe conducting problems" can do whatever they want, but why to let 'em vandalize friendly wikis (all but seven ones)? Comments please!--Armas Eesti (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I have also been blocked on Dutch Wikipedia. I didn't really break any rules, they just found my language ability to be deficient and blocked me. I would vouch for Risto Hot Sir to come back. As far as I have seen his edits have not been disruptive. But I agree with BD2412 that you should follow due appeal protocol and not create sock puppet accounts. Spannerjam (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spannerjam: Nice to see more members of the WQ community chiming in. As far as:

you should follow due appeal protocol and not create sock puppet accounts

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: I have posted a notice on Tks4Fish 's talkpage letting them know about this discussion. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"No one is as blind as the one who doesn't want to see."--80.223.94.56 21:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Risto continues to sock, both with accounts and IPs here. Again, so long as this remains true, no appeal for the lock or local blocks will be possible. And to address evident confusion from editors here, though Risto may not have engaged in disruptive editing on the English Wikiquote, their crosswiki abuse necessitated a lock. There is no button that blocks someone from every wiki except one, nor is there any logical reason for why such a person would continue to be entertained by the community. Vermont (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Naughty boy, you shall not contribute, or...!" So what's "or"? Just revert my useful edits - then we'll see what happens! One year ago I've waited long enough for the answers. The Stewarts should get rid of the harmful admins instead. Do you want the names? There's endless work to do to make wikis better - and I guess Vermont will not do my job.--80.223.94.56 01:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Alsee (He-who-sees-everything) has plans to mass revert all my contributions. I'm not against it. So go on! - damnae memoriae.--80.223.94.56 00:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I-who-see-everything (because I have the extraordinary ability to click a contributions link?), say that this entire discussion should be shut down as a waste of time and more evidence of this user's disruptiveness. Crosswiki abuse and global locks are debated and resolved on Meta, not here. I have filed a request for a global IP rangeblock.

This user (Risto/IP) has abundantly demonstrated a gross disregard for community rules, both with flagrant socking and in general. Anyone who disagrees with them gets attacked and cast as a comic-book villain in their personal persecution drama. They are unwilling or unable to appropriately deal with disagreements with other editors. They believe they are right and that that entitles them to violate any and all rules, entitles them to wage a self-righteous war, and to attack editors/admins/stewards as villains. The most important criteria for working in a collaborative project is being willing and able to acceptably deal with others. Their posts in this section alone provide abundant evidence of the problem. Alsee (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, I have disagreed with Risto a lot, completely remade a lot of his pages and edits, and he has never attacked me or anyone else in the projects where I've been an active contributor (mostly, Estonian Wikipedia and Wikiquote). I find the attitude of the part of the English Wikipedia community that has decided they rule over all the other projects, high and mighty, and can make their dismissive judgement about those based on their personal likes and dislikes, much more troublesome. One example mentioned above: someone hops into a project in which they don't even speak the language, marks Risto's pages for deletion, and hops out, uninterested in any discussion or the opinion of the locals. Another example: in the discussion mentioned above in which a couple of English users decided to forbid adding English Wikiquote links into English Wikipedia, it was based on arguments like "Wikiquote is broken, like Commons". English Wikiquote has a lot of problems, sure, but so does en.wp. And this colonial attitude does nothing to solve any problems. Like cited above, there are projects in which Risto has been clearly constructive, and blocking him there is NOT for the benefit of those project or their users. Risto has his faults, he doesn't take "no" for an answer and makes errors of judgement, but from the viewpoint of the projects where he has been useful, his faulty decisions are much less troublesome than those of the English community members who care nothing about the projects over which they exercise their powers. He may have been disruptive in some other project, but now this has turned just into game of whack-a-mole, where he's being blocked because he's being blocked. --Ehitaja (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Alsee: Do you really believe this discussion is a waste of time and should be shutdown immediately? I agree that it is foolhardy to attack you personally in this forum that is populated mainly by locals, many of whom support User:Risto hot sir. I for one truly appreciate hearing from anyone who has views that are different than mine, and who does it without resorting to name-calling.

I don't know if you, or any of the admins such as User: GreenMeansGo and User: Vermont, have ever been blocked, but as others who have participated in this discussion, I have (blocked 4 times and unblocked once, on other wmf sites). There are tens of thousands of blocked accounts, and only a handful of them have been unblocked, and stayed unblocked. As you said, socking ( which is not the only reason for blocks) are a major problem which wastes a lot of productive time of many many volunteers. Even Jimbo said back in 2014  :

A lot of them, they really cost more than they're worth</block>

However, I believe we have a unique opportunity here dealing with a /horse that many have tried to lead to water, but this horse can articulate the reason for his refusal to drink. Not only that, this horse can apparently do this in several "foreign" Languages, something most here cannot. I therefore do not believe this discussion should be shutdown prematurely, before we as a community can learn from it. Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Ottawahitech I see no productive discussion or outcome here. Crosswiki abuse and global locks are handled at Meta, and the individual involved is entrenched in warfare. They apparently feel entitled to flagrantly violate all rules and spew personal attacks. That's the end of that.

You and I are willing to engage differing views, we are willing to respect rules and process and consensus when our personal views do not prevail. This user has positioned themselves as fundamentally at war with that. I accept the position they have defined for themself. That position is incompatible with participating in this community. Consider someone who gets a parking ticket, and escalates into a crusade against the establishment with subsequent felony convictions. They're not removed from society because of the parking ticket, they are removed from society because they are unwilling or unable behave in a civilized manner. This user knew they were violating the rules, and they just keep escalating and attacking. Alsee (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The community should now realize that this is like fighting against an army of lawyers who try to prove that 2+2=5. In Europe we still believe in facts and common sense. Would you tell the Swedes - when I have the book of 17,000 quotes - that I can't write 'em? There hasn't been much progress recently at the sv-wq.--80.223.94.56 01:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Alsee: You say that the fate of User:Risto hot sir should be discussed at Meta not ar WQ, but here is something you may have missed in this garbled discussion: there is a handful of WQ contributors and participants from other small wikis who support Risto's position. Those individuals would not be able to support Risto if the discussion was taking place at Meta. Why do I say this? Simply because WQ is a safe haven for users who post their opinions without fear of reprisal. Yes it is true that I myself have not resorted to sockpuppeting, but I am not allowed to participate in Meta discussions, so would not be able to participate in any discussion outside WQ.

As far as equating Risto with someone who gets a parking ticket, IMIO you are way off. Risto is fighting for his wiki-existence, not a wiki-parking ticket. Back to you and the comnuity, cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, Risto broke rules on multiple projects, and was blocked on those projects, some of which after heated and insulting arguments with local administrators. Risto created a sockpuppet to edit the projects they were blocked on. For cross-wiki abuse, they were locked. This is incredibly straightforward. Regarding Meta-Wiki, though I understand your view seems to be that every project except Wikiquote is full of admins who block users as reprisal for undesired opinions, your experience in that area is incredibly limited. In fact, Meta-Wiki is often (unfortunately) seen as a place for users blocked on other projects to go debate their issues, though we try to keep it limited to issues of cross-wiki importance. Regardless, as I noted when I imposed a block on your account back in April, I would be more than happy to review it were you to appeal the block. Your behavior now seems markedly different (in a good way) from your behavior then, when you were literally asking long-term vandals for advice, and as such the reasons for your block on Meta-Wiki no longer stand. Vermont (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Roadmap for readers (Babe kebab)

I came up with the following roadmap or those who are as confused as I am about what is what and who is who in the above discussion. I did this by simply following links available to anyone, registered or not (I think?).

I believe an informed community is a better community. I hope this roadmap helps readers get informed.

Babe kebab (A Globally locked WQ User)

• Babe kebab is the topic of this discussion ([WQ block log)
• Babe kebab is a "blatant Risto sock" referring to User: Risto hot sir (WQ block log)(supercount)
• User:80.223.94.56 is a "sock" of Risto (WQ block log)
• User:Armas Eesti is also a "sock" of Risto (WQ block log)
• There is no denial or dispute on socking. Risto socks and IPs often explicitly or implicitly acknowledge their identify. (Examples IP 80.223.94.X acknowledges they were blocked as Risto and acknowledges owning the account used to circumvent their block, and Babe kebab confirms their prior edit count when identified as Risto)

BD2412 (WQ Admin and Bureaucrat)

• Bureaucrat on WQ
• Administrator on WQ
• Administrator on (Wikisource)
• Administrator on Wiktionary

GMG (WQ Admin and Bureaucrat)

• Bureaucrat on WQ
• Administrator on WQ
• member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team

Vermont (Global-sysop Meta Admin)

• Global sysop
• Meta:Administrator
• member of the Small Wiki Monitoring Team
• OTRS/User (Open-Source Ticket Request System)

Wim b (Steward who globally locked Risto hot sir)

• Steward
• This user's main account is on the english Wiktionary
• alternative account *Wimmo

Note: Please feel free to add yourself to this list (if you are a participant in this discussion) and to correct errors Ottawahitech (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

So I can't defend myself! And I wasn't the one who started personal attacks and rule breaking.--80.223.94.56 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what this discussion is supposed to accomplish. We cannot overturn a global lock even if we wanted to. It's not a function of any role in the local toolkit, nor within our power as members of the global community. GMG^talk 18:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? We have no say in how our community is run? Would you please elaborate. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @GreenMeansGo: Your puzzling comment above forced me to start investigating policy, which is something I would rather not do. Here is what I found (thanks to User: Alsee) at M:Stewards:

    The use of steward rights is restricted by policy; stewards will not use their technical access when there are local users who can use that access, except in emergencies.

  • So let me ask a stupid question: Since WQ has its own local admins why are Stewards involved here in the first place? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ottawahitech: Stewards may not intervene in an administrative function when there are sufficient local admins. A global lock is not an administrative function. It is exclusively a steward function. Even as a bureaucrat, I do not have the technical ability to either enact or override a global lock. By policy, they may not enact a global lock unless a user has been indefinitely banned on multiple projects, but once a lock is in place, appealing a local block is irrelevant. Only the stewards may reverse the action. Only then may local project decide to unblock. GMG^talk 13:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It is also worth noting that a global lock is global. covering literally hundreds of Wikimedia projects, with there being well over a hundred languages have their own-language Wikipedia, and most of those having at least one other active Wikimedia project (a Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikisource, etc.) under that language. It may be unlikely that an editor globally locked solely for activity involving English language wikis will suddenly begin to misbehave on Latvian Wiktionary or Vietnamese Wikisource, but it is nonetheless impractical for each local Wiki to address the potential for a problematic editor to invade any one of those hundreds of sites. BD2412 T 15:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Do those wikis want to be protectorates? Have you asked?

• Protectorates? Not entirely clear what this is supposed to mean. GMG^talk 15:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Read what Ehitaja wrote above.

The blocking of Risto hot sir

Here is my reading of this thread, so far:

This thread by User:BD2412 which started out almost two months ago was about the globally blocked user User:Babe kebab. However right from the start it was apparent that the concern of this community is about the the blocking of User:Risto hot sir who was globally blocked on 20 August 2019 and chose to create socks in order to continue their work on wmf-wikis. Babe kebab was one of the socks created by Risto for this purpose. Before being globally blocked Risto made 94,787 global edits.

Risto was never directly blocked on enWQ where they made 39,148 edits (see Risto's blocklog). Only 2.5% of those edits have been deleted. (see Edit counter supercount) The block log on the Finish WQ, where Risto made 28,778 edits, does show some blocking activity (see: fiWQ block log), in the Finish language. Those of us who do not speak Finish will have to use a translation program to follow what happened there or rely on the English testimony of Finish speakers.

The issue for this community is: why can't Risto continue editing here. Based on the testimony of local participants in this thread, Risto has been very beneficial at enWQ. There is also a more general concern starting to build up about the role Stewards play in such a cases.

Plug: WikiMedia Foundation Steward elections start February 5, 2021 Ottawahitech (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC) Updated with links Ottawahitech (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Risto claimed: no decent reasons for blocking have been represented and nobody is willing to admit it. - Instead of answering to the essential questions one Big Brother chose the easiest way: eliminating. From now on it's the question of freedom of speech. Risto also claimed that users on Estonian Wikiquote said: Right now, this user has been only useful in this project. [2]

Looking at why he got blocked on the wiki projects, Risto said that the Dutch wikiquote and Dutch wikipedia block many users for no clear reasons at all. Another user Spannerjam also said that he got blocked on dutch wiki because he of language skills. At English wikipedia, Risto said the keyword was "censorship". People who want to prevent folks to read other opinions than theirs don't like that word. It is claimed Risto was blocked because of personal attacks and censorship and bullying. I could not find clear personal attacks by this user Risto. It seems that the personal attack was when Risto said "just despotism" which he said in the heat of the moment. Is this remark "just despotism" really a personal attack? Calling somebody a despot would be a personal attack but this? --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 14:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Vermont used ONESTRIKE at Simple English wikipedia to block Risto hot sir (and Ottawahitech also). Should there have been at least one disruptive edit to do so? And Spanish wikiquote presented no reason for blocking. Everything's OK?--80.223.94.56 00:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC) comment stricken by Ottawahitech (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions: Risto should NOT have been blocked

Some users have said that the blocks were political. Risto also said that his socking was for technical reason here, and it seems some have misrepresented this. Some of the users have made the completely absurd and mendacious claim that I was a sock of this user, which makes one question if the claims about this user are as absurd.

His other crime was censorship. Even if Risto was guilty of crime of censorship he should have gone through dispute resolution before being blocked. Other users have said Risto's censorship was mistakenly called 'vandalism' when it is just a content dispute. Risto explained, this seemed to be quite clearly a case of censorship (wanting to prevent people to read quotes). Risto said Wikiquote does not care who is right or wrong, all quotes of notable people are welcome.

• Clarification. By Risto's crime of censorship is of course meant the crime of his opposition to censorship, censorship is not a crime on wikipedia. Risto said: no decent reasons for blocking have been represented and nobody is willing to admit it. - Instead of answering to the essential questions one Big Brother chose the easiest way: eliminating. From now on it's the question of freedom of speech. And Risto said:- At English wikipedia the keyword was "censorship". People who want to prevent folks to read other opinions than theirs don't like that word.

Risto's other crime was bullying in wikipedia, like adding interwiki links at wikipedia. This bullying (adding interwiki links on WP) was disliked by User Sitush, but some users have said this is a content dispute instead. The same user Sitush also opposes the addition of other interwiki links, like links to Italian language wikipedia, and various other wikipedians have opposed various interwiki links for various reasons.

For example, another reason for Risto's block at wikipedia, Risto adding an image with a quote to an article was called 'vandalism' and reverted. As David Auerbach wrote in a well known article about wikis, the problem instead stems from the fact that administrators and longtime editors have developed a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them, and this could be what happened there, where simply adding an image or trying to make a very biased article more neutral can get you blocked. He may have been blocked for adding WQ links to WP and adding an image with a quote in two articles at wikipedia, and the wikipedia articles were extremely pov and it seems that Risto's attempt at NPOV was disliked. But this was a BLP article that contained BLP violations, and BLP policy in theory should protect users who attempt at NPOV.

Risto should have gone through dispute resolution and some users have said what happened instead is that some wikipedians asked their admin-friends on wikipedia to get Risto blocked.

For example, in a similar case, when one googles the same involved users in the Risto case, the same users who got Risto blocked on WP, first result is this comment

"A great example of the problems Bishonen's power causes..... There is no reason at all that little Sitush needs to ask the opinion of this one Administrator, his Queen and protector. The query could easily be raised on AN/I, or an Administrator could be summoned to the AfD where the issue is relevant, and has already been discussed there, between editors. The only reason he has come crawling to his Queen, cap in hand, is because he thinks she will help him, because he, of course, already has a strong opinion. He doesn't think it should be acceptable, not least since it reduces the chances he will be on the winning side at that AfD, and so he hopes Bishonen will warn or even block for it, and strike every canvassed vote. He may be out of luck, since as I've said before, Bishonen isn't minded to do stupid stuff just because one of her stupid little gang wants her to. But they still ask, because if they were smart, they wouldn't need her protection."

I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened with Risto. In the Risto case Sitush did not go trough dispute resolution about Risto, and did not go to a neutral noticeboard, but asked Bishonen. Risto should have gone through dispute resolution. And Risto was also accused of canvassing. But other users said canvassing and forum shopping can also be when one asks like minded, involved admins (involved due to many prior similar interactions and same support), instead of going trough a dispute resolution processes. Risto was blocked soon after Sitush asked Bishonen about Risto.

Other users have said this blocking of Risto is typical how many honest contributors like Risto-hot-sir are driven away or outright blocked simply because they criticize NPOV or BLP violations for example.

Did Risto receive a reason based on wikipedia policy for the ban?

Some users said that adding "interwiki links to Wikipedia articles" is not against wikipedia policy, somoe wikipedians have also opposed even interwiki links to the Italian language wikipedia and to other wikipedia projects.

Other users said, I would dare to say that Wikipedia has become a rather unfriendly place, where the police shoot first, and ask questions later. Sadly this frustrated and driven out many regular, honest contributors.

Risto was one of our best and most active editors at WQ. I believe that if an editor was so useful to WQ as a tireless wikignome and asset to the project, he should not have been treated this way. For example, admins could have asked for a block review. Some users said his crime it seems was trying to argue against censorship or bias. By looking at what other users have said about the blocking of Risto, I have still not found out which wikipedia policy merits such a treatment. --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 18:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@ო Thank you so much for carrying out this elaborate research. It must have taken you a lot of time, and it is appreciated.

I would also like to share some information pertinent to this case. I believe that Risto should NOT have been globally locked by User: Wim b at the request of global sysadmin User:Vermont. I believe Risto's global lock was done in contravention of written policy:

• Meta:Global bans
• Meta:Global blocks

Here is my interpretation of these two policies:

• Global locks are reserved for blocking users who engage in cross-wiki unambiguous vandalism, spamming, etc. on wmf-wikis. Global blocks are NOT intended to cover "trolling" or similar behaviour, let alone content disputes. The latter should be handled via a Global ban.

• A Global ban is a formal revocation of editing or other access privileges (use of "Special:EmailUser" for example) across all Wikimedia projects. It reflects a broad and clear community consensus. Here is an example of an RFC initiated with the intention of Globally banning a wikimediqn active at a different wmf-wiki.

Since I am currently blocked on Meta, I would like to state that I am posting this in order to share information with other wikiquotians. I am not asking anyone to "edit by proxy" on Meta on my behalf. Just to clarify Ottawahitech (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, I'll explain it again. Risto's lock has nothing to do with a content dispute. Risto's lock was in response to their creation of a sockpuppet to evade blocks on multiple projects. That is unambiguous cross-wiki abuse. Further, after their lock they continued creating sockpuppets, and are still evading their lock and blocks. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you please explain your ONESTRIKE at Simple English wikipedia? And why haven't you reverted the about 30,000 edits that Risto's "sockpuppets" have done? How many LOCAL admins support your opinions?--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ivalon Olavi. ONESTRIKE is used on simple wiki to block problematic users who are banned in other projects, so as Ritso was then banned in some projects, hence, Vermont used this reason to block him. It is a blocking decision done by an individual admin and no consensus is needed for ONESTRIKE. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am a local admin (and checkuser) on the Simple English Wikipedia. As for how many other local admins there agree with my block, probably all of them, as I am unaware of any who endorse sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. And regarding your current cross-wiki abuse (multiple socks and IPs adding images with English captions to small wikis), please stop. Vermont (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Cannot find such images.

There is no way to appeal Global-locks on-wiki

The only way to appeal Global-locks is thru email! This was confirmed by User:MarcoAurelio who is a Steward participating in the current 2021-Steward-elections:

The only way globally locked users can appeal their locks is though OTRS at Template:Email

For original text:

Meta:Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2021/MarcoAurelio#Official appeal procedure for globally locked users. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are we discussing here

Hello, as someone reading into this, why are we discussing the lock of someone here. Appeals to global lock will be done via email to stewards using stewards@wikimedia.org. I will suggest those who are asking for an unlock or whatsoever to email to that address. Discussing here isn't productive and won't lead to an unlock anyway. My 2 cents. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Risto has emailed to stewards 1,5 years ago (two times) and hasn't got an answer.--Ivalon Olavi (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, stewards do not consider appeals by actively-editing LTAs. Vermont (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Camouflaged Mirage: the reason I am discussing this here is because I believe that Stewards are interfering with this community's ability to build content to share with the world at large. Why did Sewards globally lock Risto without community input as the process in Meta's own policy requires? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ottawahitech: That global ban =/= global lock. Global lock policy is at Meta:Global lock. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Camouflaged Mirage: Global lock is not listed as a Meta policy, it is simply an essay. Please see: Meta:Meta:Policies and guidelines. Regards, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
      • @Ottawahitech: Yeah, but as the page writes "There is no community-approved policy governing global locks, but this list represents de facto practice.", so that is the de facto policy. They are globally locked so this is what applies, not global bans content. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• There is literally nothing a local discussion can accomplish. And no, the stewards are highly unlikely to unlock an account that is actively involved in lock evasion.

If someone wants to make a symbolic act of protest, then symbolic act of protest noted. There is nothing else to do here. GMG^talk 17:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I beg to differ. As Jimmy Wales said:

We should be: kind, thoughtful, passionate about getting it right, open, tolerant of different viewpoints, open to criticism, bold about changing our policies and also cautious about changing our policies

Why imply this community has no say in how Stewards conduct themselves? Why are Stewards removing contributing members of this community? Why can we not openly discuss issues with the way we are being treated by Stewards?

I have been working on WQ:SheSaid a project started here last year by User:Anthere (see: Wikiquote:Village_pump_archive_57#SheSaid) alongside with other committed members of the WQ community. Stewards have been interfering with the composition of the small group of individuals who have been working tirelessly at WQ to build up content here. A loss of an active contributor is a blow to those of us working in this area. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "implying" anything at all. Local communities do not exercise oversight regarding global actions. I'm sorry that this isn't a deeply satisfying answer, but it's the only answer there is to give. GMG^talk 15:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, if your definition of a constructive, active contributor is an editor with well over a year of cross-wiki disruption experience, dozens of locked sockpuppets, and multiple conduct-related blocks on their initial account, there is nothing to discuss. You're simply wrong. Vermont (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on the above, let me supply an analogy: John works at a store. Steve also works at that store. One day, John decides it would be a good idea to throw rocks at the windows of other stores. John is arrested. Steve, who liked the work that John did at their store, demands that John be released because it harms the output of their store. Is that reasonable? No. Why? Because releasing John would mean that they could continue to vandalize other stores. We do not prioritize any one project by unlocking a user who has dozens of sockpuppets blocked on other projects. Vermont (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vermont: If john was the only person in the neighborhood throwing rocks, and Steve the only one complaining I would probably agree with you. However what we are witnessing here is thousands of users throwing rocks and many honest citizens upset at the police (admins/stewards), not at the rock-throwers. Maybe it's time to ask John why he is throwing rocks? Why is he willing to risk his job? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Appeal for an enwikiquote sysop to close this section ASAP

This had turned into mudslinging where a gloablly locked user, via IP socks as proxies, are able to hurl such insults to some other users in this diff and the rest. This is clearly grossly unacceptable behaviour and should be stop as soon as possible. This thread should be immediately closed to prevent more such occurrences. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Y Done --DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to reconsider the closing the above discussion

@DannyS712: I would like you to reconsider your closing of this discussion. As one of the main contributors to the discussion, I believe you did not read it carefully enough before reaching your conclusions, while basing your decision on the request of one participant who, I also believe, did not fully take the time to try and understand the issues we were discussing.

The reason the WQ community got invloved in this lengthy discussion is:

• Evidence that Risto's global block/lock is not based on policy, indeed an example was provided of another user accused of of being sockpuppeter who escaped a Global block/lock after the community was allowed to participate in the discussion as per Steward policy.
• The concept that the admin function is to serve the community, not to control it.
• The rights of this comunity to conduct its own affairs without intervention from outside interests

Many participants came here in good faith to voice their opinions in a respectful manner. There was also participation from the blocked user, which I am surprised to see is not welcomed by some. What a missed opportunity to try and understand why so many users keep coming back as socks (over 20,000 at enwiki alone). Regardless of your opinion of the merits of those edits, removal of those comments from the discussion are not acceptable in a civil discussion when the alternative is to collapse them. That way someone's words are not permanently removed from the archive records, but are not visible to those who choose not to see them.

I would greatly appreciate others giving DannyS712, whose opinion I respect, a chance to reply fully before burrying this thread with their own opinions. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This was Ottawahitech's last edit before he blanked his userpage and appears to have retired from wikiquote. Another valuable and active wikignome lost? --ო ~ ^#SheSaid 14:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech "There was also participation from the blocked user, which I am surprised to see is not welcomed by some." you should not be surprised that blocked users are not welcome. I read through the whole discussion repeatedly, contrary to your assertion. I based my decision on relevant policies and the discussion that played out, not the views of one participant. As for whether or not Risto's lock was not based on policy, again, that should be taken up with stewards. The essay w:Wikipedia:Just drop it comes to mind - you are also starting a discussion at Wikiquote:Village pump#Closing discussion because of so-called "mudslinging". Enough is enough. DannyS712 (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, removal of comments by LTAs is absolutely acceptable, when the alternative (to collapse them) lends them more legitimacy DannyS712 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech I think DannyS712 had made his point clear. I shall then make my point as you desired. Contrary to your assertion, I had read through the entire discussion multiple times before making the request. In addition, I would doubt those discussions are civil in nature, the very diff that prompted me to label the input of a risto hot sir IP sock (which is globally blocked) is clearly not civil as explained at here. In addition, you had taken this issue up at your talkpage, here on AN, on the village pumps and the talk pages of several users. I think this isn't helpful to the discussion to have it at many disparate pages. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• The discussion is closed. Take it up with the stewards. As has been repeatedly explained, there is nothing to do here. Repeatedly opening this discussion in multiple forums is beginning to border on disruption. Take it up at meta. Reopening this discussion is not advised. GMG^talk 14:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

68.193.175.208

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@Koavf:

@GreenMeansGo:

@DannyS712:

@Tegel:

@Saroj Uprety:

68.193.175.208 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Possible sockpuppet of problematic editor Fourlaxers, constistently makes incorrect edits without providing legal, reliable sources and violates rules on quote limitations (while also adding excessive unnecessary emphasis). I request indefinite protection of all those articles, and that the IP be blocked for a long period of time. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Plumerlumber

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@Koavf:

@GreenMeansGo:

@DannyS712:

@Tegel:

@Saroj Uprety:

Plumerlumber (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Consistently violates rules on quote limitations, adds excessive unnecessary categories, etc. Requesting any term of blocking of this user and indefinite protection of all articles they touched. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

There are no rules on quote limitations. For proposed rules see Wikiquote:Limits on quotations. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

1. You are not helping. IP user 73.244.34.177 had numerous blocks for the same reason: Persistent copyright violations. See its block log.

2. This is not WQ:VIP. I am reporting a problematic editor, not a vandal. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I hereby state why I don't have the right to edit Wikiquotes page? This is my first time editing Wikiquotes. The page says you can help by editing. So the first page I edited was the page Wreck-It Ralph. As I am very interested in these articles, I thought why not edit them? So the first edit was adding these two casts. Taffyta Muttonfudge (voice) and Markowski (voice). If you can reference the original Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wreck-It_Ralph, the casts are stated there too. Next I added categories of 2010s American animated films, American children's animated comic science fiction films, American children's animated science fantasy films, Category:American computer-animated films, Category:Animated films about friendship, Category:Animated buddy films, Category:Films about children to the categories list. That is all I did for that page. And the user DawgDeputy reverted the edits stating the reason was "Wrong categories." If you can happen to view the original Wikipedia article the same categories are listed. I tried to do the same thing to two other articles as you can see in my log. However this user DawgDeputy, whom I am assuming is a moderator is ruthlessly reverting my edits as if I am some sort of vandal. I want to edit in good faith. What am I even doing wrong. I might have hurt his sentiments by adding a lead to Brothers Bear page, but its stated the same in its Wikipedia article. I don't want to be confrontational at all. Seeing how there are actually moderators above. I really want to get an answer why my categories are wrong, why my edits are false, why I am a copyright vandal or a problematic editor? I am threatened with possible IP ban when all I want to do is simple edits? Plumerlumber (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• @DawgDeputy: It's difficult to tell how something like Wreck-It Ralph doesn't qualify as a "American computer-animated film". I'm inclined to point out that you are required, and not requested to discuss disagreements with other users before you come here demanding indefinite blocks and indefinite protections. GMG^talk 17:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

First and foremost, if you have "open eyes" go to Wikipedia page for Wreck-it-Ralph and scroll down to categories section, and search for the term "American computer-animated films." If you have "eyes" you should be able to locate the category. Now This film is American and it is computer animated. So I simply copied and pasted that category from Wikipedia to Wikiquotes. Do you have a problem with me doing that? Second of all what does the last part of your sentence even mean? When did I "demanding indefinite blocks and indefinite protections." All I said previously was "moderators" please tell me what am I doing wrong. I did not demand anything. Plumerlumber (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• First, while yes we want to trim quotes to a reasonable level when they get out of hand, it is correct that we do not have anything but a proposed rule with regards to limits on the number of quotes. Second, I don't believe that the categories that were added in your example were inappropriate - they seem to fit to the work on the page. Third, while there does seem to be a disagreement between you and this user, I fail to see why they should be blocked indefinitely - and your demand that they be so blocked just seems like another example of hostile behavior towards other users who do not share your views. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

None of them do. Some were even redundant. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The limits on quotation states "Five quotes maximum per hour, i.e., about one quote every 12 minutes. Quotes not assigned to specific characters are discarded. Recommended maximum length of quotes: seven lines by one character, ten lines of dialogue. Taglines do not count towards the total number of quotes." I will abide by that rules. All I did was add a two line quote to one of the articles. All I want to do now is add a lead to Brothers Bear, add categories, and I won't even add a quote now to Brothers Bear. Deal? Seriously, this user is acting as if I am some sort of Disney attacker. I am not. I am actually unemployed, very poor currently. ~ Plumerlumber 13:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I added categories to two articles and a lead to one article. I am stating it my actions beforehand showing I am not a vandal. Plumerlumber 14:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Who said you were a vandal? You are nothing more than problematic. Major difference. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Admins I request you to look into this issue. I edited to the barest minimum. I used the principle of least privilege and even then user DawgDeputy reverted my edits. This user has some sort of vendetta against me ever since I started editing. I will continue to revert the user's edits, because I don't see where I am wrong. If need be the user is the one who needs to be put into the noticeboard, not me. Plumerlumber (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy is where you are wrong. Adding categories that do not fit the article, as well as categories that are not necessary. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Second time reverting edits by Dawg.Plumerlumber (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Numerous problematic IP users made similar edits on numerous articles long before you, and they were all undone (because they were wrong). I have no vendetta against you in particular. Just the edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Third time reverting edits by Dawg.Plumerlumber (talk) 13:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Will you stop pointing out how many times I am undoing your unnecessary edits? It is unnecessary to do so. You really need to leave the articles alone until a consensus is reached. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

No discussion at Talk:Wreck-It Ralph? If I were an admin I'd be considering blocking you both for a week for edit warring. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I find Plumerlumber's activities here to be suspiciously precocious and aggressive, given that they only created an account a few days ago and have never had any activity on any other wiki. BD2412 T 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you mean to say "never had any activity using the Plumerlumber user name on any other wiki"? Or is there a rule against using different names on different wikis? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

All usernames are global now, meaning that if you register for a username on any wiki, you have that username on all wikis. Wikimedia is a single and entire project. The prohibition against using multiple accounts on a single wiki reasonably should carry over to other wikis. I can't think of an above-board reason why an editor on one wiki would want to conceal this activity in editing another. As for this specific editor, unless they choose to identify some other username under which they have edited elsewhere, there is no way to know that they have edited other wikis (or here) under a different username. BD2412 T 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone I decided not to edit Wikiquotes anymore. I mean it said in the account creation page, Wikiquote is made my people like you. "Anyone can edit pages in Wikiquote, including this one - just select the Edit this Page link on the top or bottom of this page if you think it needs improvement. You don't need special credentials, you don't even need to be logged in. You can try your hand at editing in our sandbox." So I created an account. Doesn't mean I have to do my same account from Wikipedia. Then I edited using the principle of least privilege which is categories. I even tried to say how Brothers Bear was the last traditional animated film from Disney. The only quotes I added was a two line quote that was missing in Brothers Bear. Apparently, all I did was wrong. Everything was problematic, redundant, and harmful including the categories from the literal Wikipedia page, the Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB external links and that lead in Brothers Bear. My contributions are simply like dirt to people like you. I don't want to fight or be confrontational. I simply quit. Thanks for everything.Plumerlumber (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we still have the rule "Don't bite newcomers"?--Arvatkaa Kuka (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Where has that ever been "the rule" on this project? WQ:BITE has been a proposal since 2006. BD2412 T 06:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Arvatkaa Kuka, BD2412 has concluded that Plumerlumber is not a newcomer to Wikimedia wikis and, hence, does not entitled to the protection of that rule courtesy. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if they were, "Don't bite newcomers" is not a suicide pact. A newcomer who immediately engages in uncivil conduct or makes counterproductive edits after being informed of policies against them need not be given free reign to continue this behavior. BD2412 T 17:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information!--Arvatkaa Kuka (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/24

The message to display on error is "undefined", which should be fixed. Leaderboard (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia sockpuppets- blocks needed

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zjholder issues should do all the explaining.

Blocks needed here for:

• Tessssticle keep going up and down up and down
• Mjforrest 448484
• Forrestisback29912

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Italic title

Anyone know why this particular template seems to be having an issue? Specifically, when it is used, a warning appears saying "Warning: This page calls Template:Italic title which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call)." and the effect desired by the use of the template does not appear to work. I can't see any difference in the code for the template compared to its past versions (before vandalism). This is where my lack of technical knowledge appears - I don't understand what is wrong with it. Does anyone know? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• The problem was vandalism in the underlying {{Str find}} template, now reverted and protected. This particular vandal of multiple addresses has been very busy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of interface administrator permission

Dear bureaucrats (@BD2412, GreenMeansGo, UDScott), ~riley (talk · contributions) requested yesterday on Meta-Wiki that his administrator and interface-administrator permissions on this project be removed. Given that interface administrator is a flag that can be granted and removed locally, could you please assist us in completing his request for removal of permissions? Thanks. Best regards, -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• Y Done. One hand giveth... BD2412 T 21:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• Hmm. This is unfortunate. I apologize I wasn't available. I've had little to no internet for the past few weeks. @~riley: Hope all is well. If you ever need a sounding board I believe you already have my email. GMG^talk 10:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

spam

Pierce129 has been spamming a certain online quotes database into some articles. All of them have been reverted because that's evidently why he's only here for. At worst, he may even be that site's webmaster. --Eaglestorm (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

although he hasn't edited anything in ten days (and got reverted by @BD2412, something may have to be done.--Eaglestorm (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Total Drama Action

• @Ningauble:
• @Kalki:
• @Koavf:
• @GreenMeansGo:

Total Drama Action is the target of persistent LTA IP vandals who refuse to comply with the rules. It has been the same situation for over half a year. "Deleted sence"? "Anime" characters on a Canadian animated series from an entirely different company? Clearly vandalism. Requesting indefinite blocking. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I tried checking certain articles (Star Wars films and Behind Enemy Lines), and they redirect to this article under a template loop. --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Evilasio DP. Jr2 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

And now one of those vandals is trying to circumvent the protection of Total Drama Action and trying to restore its vandalism without any explanation as to why. DawgDeputy (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And deny this user access to any talk page, including its own. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

And here is our evidence. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Ningauble:
• @Kalki:
• @Koavf:
• @GreenMeansGo:

That vandal is persistent. It is obvious it will not stop until it gets its way. Revoke this user's talk page access. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Y Done GMG^talk 11:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

And just to make sure no further vandalism is done, I request indefinite full protection on all Total Drama-related articles and any or all future sockpuppets (IP or legit) be denied talk page access upon their blocking. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Problematic IPs on the loose...

• 24.185.151.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • GUC • stalktoy • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 24.190.63.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • GUC • stalktoy • RBLs • block user • block log)

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@GreenMeansGo:

These IPs have been repeatedly problematic in its edits, making absolutely unnecessary changes to articles, adding too many quotes to certain articles in violation of copyright, etc. These IPs must be blocked severely, and the articles protected from future IP vandals indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Missing file on QOTD

Hi, today's QOTD on the main page has a missing picture which was deleted on Commons. Could it be removed or replaced? Also see section on Talk:Main Page. Thanks, Aranya (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The missing image has now been replaced. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Rugrats vandalism

@Ningauble:

@GreenMeansGo:

@Kalki:

Rugrats is the target of misinformation from unreliable sources and attacking users. Indefinite protection of the article and indefinite/global blocking of the IPs is appropriate. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a month. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I recommend making the protection of that page indefinite. Considering how these IP vandals keep ranting and raving in utter denial, and denying that IMDB can easily be doctored like Wikipedia and Wikiquote, they will not stop until they get their way or are otherwise dealt with for good. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Please protect (or delete) User talk:64.107.219.162: excessive vandalism from WMF-banned user. --Mtarch11 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Protection (2)

Please protect Past and Talk:Past: excessive vandalism from WMF-banned user. Thanks, --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete: Talk:Saints: WMF-banned user target --Mtarch11 (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

IP user 58.178.68.99

58.178.68.99 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

• @Ningauble:
• @GreenMeansGo:
• @Kalki:

This IP constantly violates copyvio and vandalizes quotes by adding unnecessary emphasis, and no matter how many warning messages I send it, it ignores them. This user must be blocked indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month - should the behavior continue after that point, longer blocks can be considered. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar given under false pretenses...

• @Kalki:
• @Ningauble:
• @GreenMeansGo:
• @Miszatomic:
• @Hasley:
• @Ferien:

Christian M. (2016) recently received a "barnstar" from a vandal/troll who was clearly trying to spread its ridiculous agenda all over Wikiquote (illegally). And Christian M. foolishly believes it is legit. He is wrong. All of the following edits must be stricken, as if the "barnstar" never existed.

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

Exhibit C

Please make things right and strike those edits before Christian M. attempts to restore it again. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• The user was blocked a week before you made this post. For context, it's not super uncommon for me to log in and have 30 some odd notifications from trolls pinging me to projects I've never even visited. The most expeditious thing to do is just ignore them. When you get all riled up and offended, you're pretty much just giving them exactly what they want. It's not really a dire emergency that we police someone's talk page because what was probably a bored and maladapted 14 year old besmirched your honor. You're probably just giving them way more attention and gratification by pinging every admin on the project and demanding satisfaction. GMG^talk 13:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I refuse to sanction blatant vandalism and those who support it. Ignoring them just leaves them free to vandalize (when they should have been stripped of Wikimedia privileges permanently). It will never stop them. Taking action is the only way. And blaming the victims for the actions of the vandals who started that whole mess in the first place is highly unconscionable. And we only get offended because the vandals caused this mess, not me. Vandalism is highly intolerable on all of Wikimedia.

And Christian M. (2016) is also trying to sanction blatant vandalism, believing the fake barnstar is a reward. And posting this report a week after the vandal was blocked-- It was never a big deal until Christian M. foolishly restored it after I had removed it when he should have left it alone to begin with. Those edits have to be stricken from the record so as to save myself, Eaglestorm, and many other users a world of hassle of undoing the vandalism Christian M. was redoing. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, all I asked for was for the edits to be stricken from the edit history as punishment for Christian M. (2016) and the vandal that gave him that illegal "barnstar" in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Rugrats vandalism

• @Kalki:
• @Ningauble:
• @GreenMeansGo:
• @Miszatomic:
• @Hasley:
• @Ferien:

...again. A blatant vandal with poor grammar skills refuses to believe that Rugrats was cancelled in 2004, despite multiple reliable sources (including the one provided in the talk page) proving otherwise and continues to jump from one IP to another. I request that all IP vandals involved be blocked and that the page be protected indefinitely, as temporary protection will not stop them. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy. He's banned by the Foundation and may not edit any WMF project. Just revert everything he adds; nothing he adds is reliable, ever, because he makes things up. Antandrus (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I really think only those with an account (and only one account) should be allowed to edit. How else will this vandalism end or even slow down? DawgDeputy (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

And in light of this persistent vandal continuously trying to mess with us on the noticeboard and the Rugrats talk page, I recommend this noticeboard and that talk page be protected against the IP(s) indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I heard somewhere that he had served a few years in prison for his actions on the WMF. I am quite surprised they still allowed him to edit here after he was released, or even let him keep his Internet privileges. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

He was in jail for several years for stalking/harassment/threats but it was unrelated to WMF. Still, it was great to have a break from his obsessive harassment (2015-2018). Antandrus (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Noticeboard protected

FYI I semi protected this page for a week given the level of vandalism --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Protection request

Can an administrator please protect Pope John Paul II? It keeps on being vandalised by a WMF-banned editor. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

And it's related to the topic above me, #Rugrats vandalism -- Ferien (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, before I saw this request --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

And now could anyone please (semi-)protect Pope Benedict XVI for a while? It seems vandalized by an anon, probably the same person on the above . --Aphaia (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and now Pope Pius XII ... semi- or protection please? --Aphaia (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V

Some troll added a speedy deletion tag in there, which I believe is nothing more than nonsense. Please remove it and ban the guy. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The vandal was already banned. But the edits should still be struck from the record. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Very interesting Clumie (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

WQ:TEMP

It may be worth protecting this page, as it's just a redirect and shouldn't need to be edited by non-confirmed users. --Ferien (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Quote of the day/May 2, 2015

Could an admin protect this page? There's quite a lot of disruption from a WMF-banned editor. Thanks in advance. --Ferien (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

delete

Can someone please delete this category: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Category:German_Southwest_Africa_Africa i made it by mistake. Thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting page protection

Requesting semi-protection of my talk page User talk:Citrivescence. I am currently being harassed across wikis by a user who jumps from IP to IP to evade blocks. 1 2 3 4 Thank you. Citrivescence (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Y Done for 6 months initially - can revisit if the issue continues after that.. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Block

Please block 2406:3400:215:7E0:5070:DC5:FF36:34FA: long-term abuse. --Mtarch11 (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Block

Please block Special:Contribs/147.10.226.241: long-term abuse. Stang (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Protect The Addams Family (film)

Can you please put protection on The Addams Family (film)? The page has been repeatedly vandalized since September, with reversions being undone. - —This unsigned comment is by Jedzz (talk • contribs) .

Y Done. ~ UDScott (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Block 58.178.68.99‎

58.178.68.99‎ (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

@Kalki: @Ningauble: @Miszatomic: @Hasley: @Ferien:

This IP vandal, who was blocked previously for one month, consistently vandalizes pages and ignores warnings. It has to be put to a stop before it goes after other pages. Requesting long-term semi-protection of all Disney articles and no less than six months of blocking against this vandal. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, not an admin so pinging me here isn't really necessary (not that I mind very much), but it's an IP, why would full protection be necessary? --Ferien (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Y Done Seems to be a static IP, so not against issuing lengthy blocks. GMG^talk 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Request

Please protect Talk:Lavrentiy Beria: LTA target --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Also Superman, thanks. --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Please block 67.204.55.251

67.204.55.251 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

excessive vandalism Stang (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously a blatant sock puppet of Ramses Bond, a previously banned vandal who refused to accept that the vandal's dialogue for the Total Drama series does not exist anywhere. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Block request

• 46.235.97.127 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
• 212.3.195.219 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Please block these accounts, vandalism at User talk:Neptune, the Mystic. Stang (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to have my talk page protected from IP attacks. Thank you! --Neptune, the Mystic (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I protected your talk page on enwiki just now (let me know if you'd like it lifted) - hopefully someone is online here too. :) Antandrus (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Stang: with all due respect, User:Neptune, the Mystic has not contributed any content to this WQ (I believe?). The storm of comments that your note here precipitated is drowning out content contributions by many good faith editors. Unless Neptune is considering building content here I believe the best solution is for him/her is to find another outlet. Respectfully. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Messages will be left on Neptune's talk page regardless of whether he actually contributes to content here. This vandal (linked) is just trying to find another talk page to message him on. --Ferien (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ferien: Why does User:Neptune, the Mystic worry about what happens on their talkpage at en-WQ if they are not contributing here and not known by the locals? No-one else cares, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It does fill up their notification feed for starters, and this vandal will also end up vandalising other pages on this wiki, this page will probably next. Ferien (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ferien: With power comes responsibility. wmf-admins are no different than real-life politicians in this respect. Individuals who are given the discretionary power to block others, delete other's work, should be accountable to the community at large. Having to put up with lots of notification feeds is a small price to pay. IMIO, YMMV, Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, still it is an issue, and harassment from a WMF-banned editor over some reverted edits is not something someone should have to receive. --Ferien (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

62.252.201.33

Excessive vandalism. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

And (semi-)protect The Wiggles (band) for much longer a period of time than previously (which was only one week, which was never going to stop IP users from vandalizing). DawgDeputy (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP above is the only IP that has vandalised that page in the past two months or so. Why semiprotect if it will affect innocent users? --Ferien (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

You mean the past seven months, during which time we had countless vandals using IP addresses (the only good edits being from registered users). We must leave absolutely nothing to chance. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Semi-)Protection request

...on the central article of Thomas & Friends. Constant content dispute (such as unsubstantiated cancellation claims, when officially, status of the series is nothing beyond on hiatus), and the fact that if the separate articles for each season and film have had indefinite protection, so should the central article. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

And block this (sockpuppet) user:

Boober123 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) DawgDeputy (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Revdel request

Can someone rev del my IP used (124.xxx.xxx.xxx) on User talk:Ottawahitech. Thanks! SHB2000 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Block request

Please block 112.204.217.222: Long-term abuse (see LTA page, global lock already requested). Thanks, --Mtarch11 (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us that. Conquering with you, I placed a one-week long block on this address. --Aphaia (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Hello! Please protect the page Philosophical pessimism. It is currently the target of a WMF-banned LTA (w:en:WP:LTA/GRP), who is using a proxy service to repeatedly attack the page and try to engage in a mindless revert war that I have no interest in continuing. Thank you! JavaHurricane (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

For those who are revert-warring with GRP here: don't do it. He has lots of time to waste in trolling, having nothing else to do that is productive. We have other, productive tasks at hand. Don't waste your precious time in revert-warring with a troll. JavaHurricane (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Lavrentiy Beria

Could an admin please protect this page or block the IPs involved, as the page is currently subject to edit warring from a WMF-banned editor. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hacked / Block request

Can someone look at my profile? User:KingBaudoin It seems to be hacked?

Its says:

King cyber sindicate. HACKED: In the 2010s, personal data belonging to millions of Facebook users was collected without their consent by British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, predominantly to be used for political advertising.

With this suspicious link, don't click it, it's probably a virus: https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/

How do i change it? KingBaudoin (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

already found how to change it, this is the person that changed the text of the template, please block this account, thanks: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/136.158.41.175 KingBaudoin (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Very destructive person, please block him, urgent, thanks https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Page&diff=3036172&oldid=3036170 KingBaudoin (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Already Y Done GMG^talk 19:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

BLOCK REQUEST URGENT

THIS USER KEEPS VANDALISNG WIKIQUOTE, PLEASE BLOCK HIM!

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/136.158.41.175

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingBaudoin (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked by Ninguable. --Ferien (talk) 09:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Rugrats and Talk:Rugrats

Today's targets of the WMF-banned user GRP. Please protect and revdel the links as they are abusive and make libelous assertions about me and Antandrus. Thanks! JavaHurricane (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Protected both and blocked some of the users involved. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Protection

Could an admin protect my talk page? I’m not active on here, but a WMF banned LTA (george reeves person) is harassing me here. Thanks, Nigos (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• This has been done. BD2412 T 01:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello, don't know where to request page protection here so posting it on Admins Noticeboard. This page needs protection. I checked the page history, the IP editor has been vandalizing the page since May 2021. Lightbluerain (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No Admin active?!🤷 Lightbluerain (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:, perhaps you are active. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected it for a year. Ruslik0 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightbluerain (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• I see that User:Ruslik0 is not an admin on WQ. Is it policy on WQ that editors such as wmf-stewards are allowed to carryout admin duties? If so, which other types of wmf-officials are allowed to do that? Is this documented anywhere? Just curious, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Ottawahitech: If there aren't any admins responding to reports like above and the situation is more of an emergency then yes I think stewards can take action. However I'm not sure if a whole year's protection was necessary here considering the IPs are all in the same /64 range (which isn't a big deal to block), where a long-term block can be placed that would stop vandalism on all the pages they are vandalising without affecting innocent users... --Ferien (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ferien, As far as I understand, Stewards are only allowed to exercise admin-powers on small wikis (please correct me if I am wrong). Have you considered the posibility that WQ admins know which locals are more likely to exaggerate a need for blocking/protection etc.? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Ottawahitech: Stewards and global sysops can exercise powers on small wikis yes, but in an emergency they can also go onto bigger wikis. Of course some locals will think something's more of an emergency than something else, but at the end of the day it's up to the stewards to decide, they can always decline a request and ask someone to wait for an admin to arrive. --Ferien (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ferien,

  I have not seen documentation anywhere on any wiki that allows Stewards to interfere with local administration on bigger wikis. It makes no sense to me to allow Stewards who have lIttle understanding of the local issues on wikis they do not contribute to on a regular basis. It is hard enough for local admins to see everythiing that is happening!

  BTW thanks for continuing to ping me. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Move Coronavirus disease 2019 to COVID-19

The Wikipedia article about the disease is simply called COVID-19. So, for consistency, the page Coronavirus disease 2019 here on Wikiquote should be moved to COVID-19, requiring an administrator to delete the target page and then restore the earlier edits (thus merging the histories). Then, Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 should likewise be moved to Talk:COVID-19, deleting the existing target page in the way and then restoring the earlier edits (thus again merging the histories). The two sections from February 2020 should then be merged above the "Proposals for more" section. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Request

Please delete my userpage and talk page. It would be nice if you could also protect them. I've been the subject of some LTA and they keep harrasing me through my userpages. Cheers --Synoman Barris (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And [3] should also be deleted --Synoman Barris (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

2603:6080:A700:1C39:85B7:F370:BB6C:33B2

Adds false block templates to user/user talk pages. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Total Drama Action talk page vandalism

@Kalki:

@Ningauble:

@GreenMeansGo:

@Miszatomic:

One IP vandal refuses to admit what the IP vandal did was dead wrong. Requesting indefinite protection of the talk page and all Total Drama articles and talk pages to prevent this vandal from ever returning, and indefinite blocking for the vandal, as well. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked one persistently used IP for 3 months, and semi-protected the talk page for 3 months. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 22:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful. If this continues, however, I request the next block and semi-protection timeframe be more than twice as long. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@DawgDeputy, May I ask a silly question? Why are there so many vandalism reports on this page? Why not post on Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress? Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Does anyone patrol this category as a matter of course, please? It does not have the appearance of either being speedy or leading to deletion at present. Timtrent (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent, Just curious what prompted your question. Do any of the 6 pages currently listed for a speedy pose a serious problem? On the other hand I see that the article Yoshihide Suga about a prime minister of Japan is listed for deletion at Category:Votes for deletion with no one chiming in to the discussion. Could be because it is holiday season? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech quite some time ago I had nominated Hamis Kiggundu in this permalink. I have no idea whether or not the nomination was valid. It was declined by an IP editor earlier today. The thing is, there appeared to be nothing actually 'speedy' about the process in the sense I am used to from Commons and en WP.

I also have no clear concept of deletion processes and procedures here, and will welcome advice either here or on my talk page Timtrent (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah.. now I understand. As far as things around here being slower than enwiki and commons, is it also not slower at other small wmf-wikis such as wikibooks, wikiversity, wikisource, wikinews, etc? I see that some admins here are very busy looking after things that are important for this community.

I am not familiar with deletion processes and procedures at WQ, but I know that many contributors are busy building content rather than undoing other people's work and have little interest in this area. I think I recognize your name from enwiki as a long-term patroller (I think?) and would be interested in your ideas for improvements at WQ. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent forgot to ping Ottawahitech (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech I've been around on en WP a while. I recognise your name also. I think the major improvement would be to implement Twinkle for routine admin tasks to help newbies here with experience elsewhere navigate WQ Timtrent (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have created Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Hamis Kiggundu on the basis that the speedy deletion was challenged. I will learn something, I expect. Thanks for giving me the prompt to do this @Ottawahitech, even if you did not suggest it directly. Timtrent (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sure WQ could use help. Thanks for stepping up. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

firstinspire.com

Heavily spammed by Daily Motivation et al.. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Block

Please block 2001:8003:3C4B:B600:0:0:0:0/64: Long-term abuse. --Mtarch11 (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

美好的时光好孩子 (talk · contributions)

Please consider blocking 美好的时光好孩子 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log). His edits are limited to POV pushing. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

His edits are obviously controversial and need to be discussed on the talk page of the relevant entry to form consensus, but he's dropped off the site. Please post again if he reappears. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

2603:6080:A700:1C39:C589:6817:F2A8:1B04

• special:contribs/2603:6080:A700:1C39:C589:6817:F2A8:1B04
• rm delete template on article The Northside Show (season 10) and The Northside Show (season 9), vandalism talk page. Stang 22:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked by someone else. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Looney Tunes: Back in Action

@Kalki:

@Ningauble:

@GreenMeansGo:

@Miszatomic:

Requesting long-term semi-protection of both the article and its talk page, due to persistent vandalism. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE-- The main page is semi-protected, but the same protection should also apply to the talk page. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

152.86.164.35

Cross-wiki abuse, going on lots of different wikis to ask people to proxy edit for them on enwiki. Shown on Special:Diff/3054662. Blocked on simplewiki and enwiki too (that's why they're asking random people to edit for them there) Thanks, Ferien (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Koavf. They are continuing on the account StevwRudueieh (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log). Ferien (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That was fast, thank you! --Ferien (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Koavf, another IP address special:contribs/107.127.53.41, thanks. Stang 22:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Stang:. You beat me too it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And Special:Contribs/107.127.53.25, Koavf (hope you don't mind the pings!) --Ferien (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Pings are fine! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. They are back again @Koavf: as 107.127.53.29. Would it be possible to delte my page or lock it so newly registered or IPs can't use the talk page? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

108.207.249.33

Please block 108.207.249.33: vandalism. --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Block

Please block Zjholder6173: Long-term abuse (Zjholder) --Mtarch11 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Globally blocked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nuke and Block

Nuke all pages by Chuogcyui (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) and block indefinitely for mass spam campaign here --Synoman Barris (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:102.64.165.103

Please delete User talk:102.64.165.103: Vandalism. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Block

Please block 2600:1700:DC00:1960:3152:17F2:13A7:85F7/64: Vandalism. Thanks, --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Superman

Hi, can a protection be put on this article please? A certain WMF-banned editor seems to be spending most of his time there at the moment. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I added a simple statement from WP on the other uses of the character. I also protected the page for two weeks (will extend if it becomes necessary). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response :) Ferien (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

IP vandal that just won't stop

1.152.108.86 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • GUC • stalktoy • RBLs • block user • block log)

Please can we get somebody to look at this ongoing issue Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#New_report_2022-01-27,_23:35? The edits are pretty egregious. There is defamation and deliberately abusive misgendering (in both content and edit summaries) as well as general transphobia and homophobia. I think we need a block, some page protections and all their edits revdeled. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, some of this is very inappropriate. I saw some edits that are not obvious candidates for revdel. @DanielRigal: are you sure that you think all of these merit revdel? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I should have been more specific and said all their edits to Abigail Thorn and some of their others. (Sorry. Things were happening very fast and I was getting tired.) I think that all of the edits to Abigail Thorn made by all IPs, not just this one, since Dec 25 (inclusive) are bad and are worth revdelling as they introduce a baseless and idiotic anti-vax conspiracy theory involving Thorn and others that far-right dingbats are trying to promote as well as misgendering and a pre-transition photo. Apart from that, most of the IPs other edits are blanking so maybe it is OK to just revdel the ones with offensive edit summaries e.g some of the ones to Natalie Wynn. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this. Nobody should have to see their disgusting comments and abuse when going back through the page history. Dronebogus (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress on Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress

152.22.84.23 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • GUC • stalktoy • RBLs • block user • block log)

We have an IP vandal vandalising Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress (Is that metavandalism?) as well as other pages. They have also made racist comments about another editor. A good long block seems to be in order. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that they are blocked now. Thanks. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa (film)

Some anon has been trying to insert some reference to a marciano fight but I thought it was not notable. and prove to be combative whenever they try to revert. I think whatever reference that is, its triviality, plain and simple. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong!!! The Marciano-Ali Superfight film made Rocky 6 possible and marciano was inspiration to balboa movies!!! Do your research first before errupting with none-sense!!! —This unsigned comment is by 62.199.3.36 (talk • contribs) .

And why be so triggered and defensive? Your combativeness serves no purpose and only shows you being mired in triviality. You want to waste your life trying to prove things that don't matter and you never had a personal investment in? Try spellchecking sometime, kid. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This person is banned by the WMF for exactly this behavior, along with outing, stalking, harassment, and an endless stream of comically ungrammatical threats. It's usually just best to remove his sputter; it's easy to spot (he's on this page at least twice already, above in the "Superman" and "User talk:102.64.165.103" threads). Antandrus (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend why the LTA is still hopping from one IP address to another to continue cyberbullying others and spreading lies, and no one is contacting the proper authorities to stop him. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Scytl

I don't know how the deletion process works here, but I'm reasonably certain that Scytl is not in scope of this project. It's about random things that have been said in the media about a company. Sandstein (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You may very well be correct - there are two main processes available to request deletion (other than speedy deletion). Take a look at Wikiquote:Proposed deletion and Wikiquote:Deletion policy. The first is for often more-obvious cases and the second, where further discussion is probably warranted. In fact, if one uses the proposed deletion path and someone else challenges that, it is likley that the second path will follow soon after. After reading those pages, come back if you have questions. ~ UDScott (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

152.117.105.92

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@Koavf:

@GreenMeansGo:

• 152.117.105.92 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Constantly adds quotes to articles to exceed limitations and open the door to vandalism. Requesting long-term semi-protection of every article the IP ever touched and long-term blocking of the IP. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@Koavf:

@GreenMeansGo:

This IP is at it again. Learned absolutely nothing from its previous block. Requesting no less than two weeks worth of blocking against this problematic IP. DawgDeputy (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Doubled block length. I'm still hesitant to call this vandalism, but at some point, being ignorant of the rules is borderline malicious. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@DawgDeputy: As a little process thing, I am fine with you pinging me (sometimes I don't see every edit to this page) and I think other admins are too. Visually, it would be handy if you would just string them altogether on one line with one ping, like {{Ping|Koavf|Kalki|Person3}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Has Wikiquote:Votes for deletion been abandoned?

While it is not exactly busy it has a goodly number of discussions way past their expiry dates. Timtrent (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Another LTA

I sleep, I sleep! (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) --Synoman Barris (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Globally locked by Tks4Fish --Ferien (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Protect

I know the LTA above will revert this, but I will not give attention to a person who thinks they will get any significance or attention writing their nonsense here. Back to my point, I think this noticeboard should be protected for a while to avoid such revert wars --Synoman Barris (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Request

Please protect Talk:Philosophy and Ludwig van Beethoven: LTA target --Mtarch11 (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This has been done. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 13:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please protect Talk:Plato: LTA target. --Mtarch11 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Also Travel and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. This banned user stalks people's edits, reverts them with bad faith edit summaries, and hopes to recruit help for his "side" in an imaginary war. Antandrus (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Why has nobody reported this stalking vandal to the proper authorities? There does not seem to be any other way to stop him for good. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Feel free. He did spend three years in jail for stalking and harassment (ten felonies, mostly dismissed but at least one 'not guilty by reason insanity') - what happens is he gets out and just starts up again. It utterly sucks. How do you get someone's internet taken away? The Chicago police don't care. "Someone is harassing you on the internet? Turn off your computer." If he makes actual threats from one of his IPv6 ranges (AT&T and Comcast), save the diff, because those can be tied to him. The others are all open proxies. If this is too much information, I understand, but this guy has been a pest since 2006, and never stops. "HarassBot". I'm open to ideas, because I'm sick of this. -- And thank you to everyone who helps remove his harassment, abuse, and random rubbish. Antandrus (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Just one other thing -- why doesn't m:Trust and Safety take this kind of thing on? Doesn't that seem like a reasonable addition to their mission? People like this are poisonous, and have to be removed from WMF projects, but I'm not aware of them doing anything to help other than putting him on their ban list. Antandrus (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you written to the threats email address: emergency[at]? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Not recently, but maybe it's time again. Do they actually do anything off-wiki (which is where this needs to escalate to)? Guess I can find out. Maybe if a bunch of people contact them they'll do something? I would think that if the Foundation contacted law enforcement, that could have some clout.

Anyway, thanks everyone for your help. Antandrus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

88.7.214.219

This LTA's back again. Please revdel everything. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Histmerge required

Drew Gerald was recently cut and paste moved to Andrew Daniel. I think it is a valid move, however an admin will need to merge their histories for attribution purposes (see w:WP:HISTMERGE.) Eviolite (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not even sure if the person meets notability, as I can't find any indication that these quotes have gained traction (outside of e.g. Reddit posts) and the creator is a near-SPA. Eviolite (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted as non-notable promotion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please consider undeletion, the idea was to ensure proper attribution to the author, not promotion. The original page was under the author's penname "Drew Gerald" and has recently decided to be identified by legal name "Andrew Daniel". You can see many notable uses of quotes: https://www.google.com/search?q=drew+gerald+quotes - and most notable quotation: https://www.google.com/search?q=you+only+struggle+because+you%27re+ready+to+grow Metaheal (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Undeleted for now. @Eviolite:, do you want to nominate for deletion? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have too strong of an opinion (I only discovered the situation via SWViewer), and am not really aware of Wikiquote's policies regarding inclusion, so I won't for now (of course, if someone more experienced thinks deletion is warranted, they can start one.) Eviolite (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting protection on the Talk:Death page:

Hi, there's been some persistent vandalism from a banned editor that needs to be protected, and a bit of edit-warring is occurring on that said page as well. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Y Done by someone else. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

152.117.105.92

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@Koavf:

@GreenMeansGo:

• 152.117.105.92 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

At it once again. Still learned nothing from its previous block. Requesting no less than a month's worth of blocking, and no less than twice that long worth of semi-protection of all articles it ever touched. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd already blocked this user for a month before I even saw this request. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

user:Eaglestorm bullying, hounding, article ownership, edit warring, rule totalitarianism

This user seems to have issues with certain editors and the LOQ policy that they deal with in a distinctly uncivil manner. See the following:

Complaints about abusive behavior from other users:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Your_comment_on_Christian

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Christian_M._(2016)...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Be_Civil!

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Uncivil_behavior

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Once_again...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Uncivil_responses_to_efforts_at_even_civl_compromise_and_deference

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:DawgDeputy#SuperMyers1028/Christian_M_2016

Abuse incidents:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Star_Wars (user bashing)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Return_of_the_Jedi#This_film_is_a_classic,_and_has_TONS_of_great_and_memorable_quotes (bashing newcomer, extreme LOQ abuse)

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Avengers:_Endgame&diff=prev&oldid=3082483 (Article ownership, LOQ abuse and personal attack in summary)

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eaglestorm&diff=3082517&oldid=3082503 (More insults)

Rules totalitarianism and article ownership criticisms:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Full_Metal_Jacket

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#Black_Widow_(2021_film)

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:Eaglestorm#How_I_Met_Your_Mother

General evidence of LOQ abuse, hounding and being a jerk:

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

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eaglestorm&action=history

Oh gosh whatever could this be:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eaglestorm

Basically their whole talk page is nothing but reasonable complaints about behavior answered dismissively, stretching back YEARS. I think it’s probably time they receive some stronger sanctioning.

Dronebogus (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I've never heard of this guy, but tries to claim by that long laundtry list that they know it all. Do I know you from somewhere? This one is nothing more than a troll claiming he was "insulted". Header is full of lies and half-truths driven by people with agendas. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have arrived to refute my accusations by insulting me instead of actually explaining your actions. You know you aren’t really helping your case by doing that. Dronebogus (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Yapyapyap, that's from your viewpoint. It's just you making mountains out of molehills. "Insults" please. Let's not feed the trolls guys, especially those who think they're whiteknights for certain people around here! --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Please just stop bullying people abusing the LOQ rules to ridiculous degrees. Wikiquote is not your personal fiefdom, it belongs to everyone who can edit it competently. I’m trying to be nice here. Dronebogus (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Eaglestorm, I believe that the case laid out here is quite strong and shows a pattern of abuse by you towards other users and some sort of belief that you own the pages contained in this site. The next incident of such behavior (whether in edit summaries or direct discussion with another user) will result in a block - no further warnings will be given. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow that was fast: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Avengers:_Endgame&diff=3082589&oldid=3082586

Block time, I presume? (PS I’m assuming “GFE” means “Google fucking exists” since it’s not a policy and I’m pretty sure it’s not referring to “w:girlfriend experience” in this context) Dronebogus (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

They’re also edit-warring over trivial changes seemingly just to bludgeon their “ownership” of the pages. Dronebogus (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume that GFE refers to "Good faith effort". I would advise you to cease the edit warring from your side as well. Only when the dust settles from this latest dispute can we as admins act to address the situation in the best way. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

User:DawgDeputy User:Dronebogus edit war, content/policy dispute

As can be seen here, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/DawgDeputy is convinced that Wikiquote:Limits on quotations is rigid, official policy and even ACTUAL COPYRIGHT LAW, and is obsessed with enforcement of it to a ludicrous and disruptive extent, and making pointless edits ( https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Future_Part_II&curid=11833&diff=3082616&oldid=3082615 ) to the Back to the Future 2 article with minimal justification. Dronebogus (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ningauble:

@Kalki:

@Koavf:

@GreenMeansGo:

• Dronebogus (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

This user has been constantly adding excessive quotes to articles, refusing to comply with quote limitations. And he has been hounding me with demands, refusing to accept my answer. Requesting immediate investigation. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wow that wasn’t remotely surprising that we both immediately showed up here complaining about each other and have no interest in “negotiating” after the pointless block we were both subjected to. Dronebogus (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: The "pointless block" was imposed because it does no one any good to have our site filled with users at war, going back and forth over the content of a page. It was imposed to create a pause in which cooler heads might prevail, nothing more (and no blame was assigned to either side, as the blocks were doled out equally). ~ UDScott (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• @DawgDeputy, Dronebogus: Did you two post to the talk pages to get consensus? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Koavf: I TRIED to negotiate on DD’s talkpage but I kept getting reverted and dismissed. Dronebogus (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Then if you can't get consensus between the two of you--which happens--ask for third parties to give their perspective. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Koavf: And do you, as a third party, have any perspective? Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: Just for the record, I had to dismiss his messages because 1: I was well within my rights to do so, and 2: He has no right to call the shots and disrespect quote limitations. And I have had quite the number of IP users of his same MO (but not the same person, mind you) blocked.

Furthermore, one page on which Dronebogus edited: Return of the Jedi, has 12 quotes, already over the 11-quote limit for that film. He insists that a quote of only "three words" (the one he continuously added was also incomplete) is not a violation. He is wrong. Even a quote of only one word still counts as a quote and toward the quote count. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@DawgDeputy, Dronebogus:: how about you make a new topic on the talk page(s), ping me, and explain what the controversy is? Speaking from experience, edit-warring is not the answer. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: I can’t do that because the problems are related to w:wp:CIR and refusal to listen, and stretch across multiple pages. They are the specifically:

• DawgDeputy thinks the non-official policy proposal Wikiquote:Limits on quotations is essentially copyright law and must be followed to the exact letter: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Return_of_the_Jedi&diff=prev&oldid=3082614
• DawgDeputy refuses to negotiate and reach consensus, instead stonewalling arguments with repeated assertions they are just “following the rules” (once again LOQ is only an unofficial policy and not gospel truth): https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DawgDeputy&diff=prev&oldid=3082612 https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DawgDeputy&diff=prev&oldid=3082607 https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DawgDeputy&diff=prev&oldid=3082599
• Despite claiming “not to make the rules”, DawgDeputy makes up their own non-textualist interpretations of guidelines: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=3082714&oldid=3082711
• DawgDeputy engages in pointless edit warring over trivial changes that do not improve the article at all: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Future_Part_II&diff=prev&oldid=3082616 https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Future_Part_II&diff=prev&oldid=3082547 https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Future_Part_II&diff=prev&oldid=3082601
• DawgDeputy only edits a narrow range of articles related to, to be blunt, films and TV that would probably be of interest to kids or otherwise don’t require much thought to superficially enjoy (i.e. cartoons, action/adventure movies and comedies— I like those too but I also like more serious media), seemingly showing some topic ownership issues and possible immaturity: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/DawgDeputy&target=DawgDeputy
• DawgDeputy seems to be obsessed with gatekeeping and civily violating w:WP:BITE, seen both above and in https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=3082710&oldid=3082691

As can be seen in all the above diffs, DawgDeputy doesn’t seem to believe in collaboration and compromise, the whole point of a wiki, instead deciding they and they alone are allowed to determine article content and relying on edit warring to wear down those they disagree with. Their behavior is similar to user:Eaglestorm’s issues with rules abuse and article ownership only DawgDeputy does their bludgeoning and edit warring civilly. Since they’re also one of the few users who doesn’t find Eaglestorm’s behavior completely insufferable I’d even tentatively postulate one might be the good hand/bad hand account of the other or a w:wp:meatpuppet. User:Dronebogus (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dronebogus, I urge you to reconsider your choice to refuse to follow Koavf's suggestion. Yes, it is a pain to deal with an edit warer who does not compromise, and you shouldn't have to do. But if you take the time and make the effort then, eventually, an admin will see the problem, see that it is not you, and take appropriate action. You now have an admin's attention. Don't squander it. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I said I already made an effort and they just reverted my request. Dronebogus (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is (or are) "they"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

DawgDeputy Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a classic DawgDeputy move. And one for which Koavf previously issued a three month block. My recommendation: cut the the link to the diff where DD reverted your post and paste it on to Koavf's talk page with a comment that you are attempting to comply with their proposed procedure. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, that block only denied me access to Koavf's talk page, simply for removing comments (to which he never replied) from a problematic user. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

For the record, here's an example where an admin stepped in to restore a massive DawgDeputy removal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That is immaterial, and nevertheless went nowhere. DawgDeputy (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop trying to claim anything that makes you look bad or that you disagree with is invalid or irrelevant. That is commonly known as “moving the goalposts” and is frowned upon. Dronebogus (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It was merely a dispute over a petty unnecessary addition to a quote that never went anywhere. Not a copyvio case. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

That is beside the point. You were violating actual policy against deleting other people’s comments for no good reason and not your outlandish interpretation of a policy draft that hasn’t been officially adopted (how many times must I state that last bit?) Dronebogus (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Dronebogus, I note your post to Koavf's talk page with cites to DawgDeputy's talk page. If you have some examples of DawgDeputy removing posts somewhere other than their own talk page then I recommend you add those. If not, you should read and follow Koavf's suggestion to "make a new topic on the talk page(s) [where edit warring is taking place], ping me, and explain what the controversy is." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Koavf doesn’t really seem to get or care how disruptive DawgDeputy is. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

They’re spending more time nitpicking my complaints and implicitly blaming me for being equally stubborn and uncivil or something like that. It’s frustrating and I’d like a coherent response to the evidence I’ve provided and some kind of assistance with the situation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dronebogus (talk • contribs) 00:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

We have both provided good evidence this user is disruptive and continues to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dronebogus (talk • contribs) 00:24, 7 March 2022‎ (UTC)

Dealing with a difficult editor is an asymmetrical battle and I understand your frustration. But you have to (a) remain civil and (b) avoid making it about personalities ("it's the edits, not the editor"), See Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss.

I will suggest one last time that you "read and follow Koavf's suggestion to 'make a new topic on the talk page(s) [where edit warring is taking place], ping me, and explain what the controversy is'" (emphasis added). That is, take it one article at a time - don't dump a laundry list. And if DD reverts your new topic, send a diff of that to Koavf. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• • Koavf complained about making threads in different places. You can’t win for losing. Dronebogus (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    • On the plus side DawgDeputy seems to have acquiesced to my changes after I provided a lengthy explanation. We’ll see if it lasts. Dronebogus (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
      • As I said, I’m skeptical of Koavf’s concern for the situation. They seem to think it’s a personal squabble and not a facet of a deep and long-running w:wp:cir] problem. I’ll try to do more research but I’m probably going to try an uninvolved admin. Dronebogus (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

        Wow, well, I didn't expect an assumption of bad faith, but as I wrote on my talk page, I am concerned about 1.) conversations spiraling out of control and being plastered over multiple pages and sucking up all kinds of complaints into one big mess that is hard to untangle and 2.) making conversations personality-based instead of principal- or guideline-based. I am not making any assumption about anyone's personal styles and I have seen inappropriate behavior from both of the individuals in this dispute. I really don't think my two preferences are very unreasonable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

        Fair enough. Dronebogus (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

More DawgDeputy edit warfare

DawgDeputy has been engaging in an edit war. I have tried to negotiate but they have just fallen back on “I don’t make the rules etc” again.

• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Despicable_Me_(film)&diff=3083933&oldid=3083869 calls my edits “vandalism” (I was copying in incorrect material from an older version accidentally and removed it)
• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Despicable_Me_(film)&diff=3084016&oldid=3084013 another mass revert without citing policy
• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Despicable_Me_(film)&diff=3084025&oldid=3084024 simply calls additions “meaningless” instead of an explanation, misinterpreting unofficial guidelines yet again)
• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Despicable_Me_(film)&diff=3084026&oldid=3084025 massive unexplained revert
• https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Despicable_Me_(film)&diff=3084031&oldid=3084029 more ABF
• https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Despicable_Me_(film) policy bludgeoning rather than seeking consensus

I actually want to improve the article based on DawgDeputy’s points, but I can’t do it if they refuse to let me edit it for five minutes. Dronebogus (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I've commented on this specific incident on the film's talk page here. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeking admin input

I'm not sure if any of the other admins have followed any of the discussion above, but I am asking for review by other admins. I have tried to mediate a bit and have tried to create some compromise, but now I am also being challenged for doing so. Before I instinctively respond in a rather vindictive manner, I would like to have fresh eyes review it and take any appropriate action. In particular, please look at the edit history of Despicable Me (film) and its talk page, as well as the discussions above. I believe my actions towards all three users in this case were correct, but I of course lack objectivity at this point. And while I am sympathetic towards Dronebogus in their discussion with the other two, it appears that I have run afoul of them now too. It is my belief that the last edit to the film page should be reverted to the version after my changes, but I am reluctant to continue another edit war. Please review and act as you see fit. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Really no thoughts from anyone? Is no one reading this noticeboard anymore? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like you and Koavf are the only active admins anymore Dronebogus (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• @ UDScott I try to read this board whenever I get a chance, but following discussion here requires an enormous amount of time. I believe that one of the main reasons for this is the frequency in which edits here are removed by other editors, often without any consequences to the offenders. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

GRP returns

Academia is his latest target. Please protect, thank you. JavaHurricane (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: thank you! GRP is now targeting Diane Sawyer, which needs protection. JavaHurricane (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also Truth. JavaHurricane (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Got 'em. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

One more: User talk:Britmax -- thanks in advance. Antandrus (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Good morning. Reusing this thread because he was back this morning with more abuse. Could an admin please hide these abusive edit summaries? Thanks, ---- MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I've never seen this interface before. Thanks, M. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@UDScott: GRP is now vandalising Talk:Death. JavaHurricane (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@UDScott: could you revdel the abusive edits and edit summaries that GRP has left on this page? Thanks! JavaHurricane (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You might also want to semi-protect this page temporarily. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Make that indefinitely. There is no stopping this vandal unless he is dealt with and banned from the Internet by the proper authorities. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose, though this particular vandal is unlikely to stop and will just find another page to attack. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

He can try, but he will only end up in serious, unavoidable trouble. This is why I think only registered users should edit on WMF. Vandals easily take advantage of IP addresses. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Today's target: War. JavaHurricane (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Now at Talk:War. JavaHurricane 15:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Memorial Day. JavaHurricane 12:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Now at Fulton J. Sheen. JavaHurricane 05:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Now attacking Torture; a massive revert war is going on there between GRP on proxies and several vandal fighters. JavaHurricane 04:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I like to say i'm blue, but i'm also a world constantly vandalizing pages:

Hello, could an admin please block for this user for constantly vandalizing pages and making useless redirects to random pages? Thank you. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Account has been locked; a nuke is needed now. JavaHurricane 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That's Y Done. Noticed they went onto simplewiki and nuked the pages there but didn't notice here. Thanks JavaHurricane and DarkMatterMan4500. --Ferien (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

102.184.31.218

Only made one edit, but you might wanna keep an eye on them to make sure they don't vandalize. 2603:6080:A700:1C39:A07A:EE06:CF73:43EE 17:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

It was a WMF-banned editor, but they edited 12 hours ago and have probably moved onto another IP so blocking will probably not help anything. Thank you for the report though, and happy editing!--Ferien (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the cheers. I did not say to block them, just keep an eye on them. You never know. IPs can change over time. 2603:6080:A700:1C39:A07A:EE06:CF73:43EE 17:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This user keeps bugging me about restoring the 2010s and 2020s sections of the Horror film page on Wikipedia.

This user, CreepshowJollygiant, keeps bugging me about restoring the 2010s and 2020s sections of the Horror film page on Wikipedia. So could you please put a stop to this as soon as possible? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Now another user, 107.119.45.37, has just pestered me about the same thing, and something about being crooked and unsourced. Could you please do something about this right now? Here are the links to the users I’m talking about: Special:Contributions/107.119.45.37, Special:Contributions/CreepshowJollygiant

https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall&type=revision&diff=3093031&oldid=3092810&diffmode=source https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamDeanHall&type=revision&diff=3093108&oldid=3093047&diffmode=source

AdamDeanHall (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked both the users involved. Thanks for reporting! --Ferien (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I am reporting a ban evasion.

This user, Special:Contributions/LeftyJuJu, has a history of a ban evasion, and is linked to the other blocked accounts. Could you please block him as soon as possible? He keeps asking me over and over again to restore the 2010s and 2020s sections on the Horror film page on Wikipedia. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's now been globally locked by stewards. --Ferien (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Request

Please protect Talk:Vladimir Lenin: LTA target. Thanks, --Mtarch11 (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mtarch11: Y Done, thanks --Ferien (talk) 06:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Request (2)

Please protect Talk:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: LTA target. Thanks, --Mtarch11 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Y Done already but didn't see this. Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Request protection

My user talk page is currently the target of on-going harrassment by an LTA-sock. Thank you Thewolfchild (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thewolfchild, seeing as you haven't edited much here and you've had to deal with a lot of LTA on your talk page, I've semi-protected your talk page for a whole year. Hope this helps. :) --Ferien (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Should do. Thanks Thewolfchild (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am reporting more ban evasions.

These users, Special:Contributions/107.122.97.40 and Special:Contributions/166.205.141.44, have a history of a ban evasion, and are linked to the other blocked accounts. Could you please block them as soon as possible? They keep asking me over and over again to restore the 2010s and 2020s sections on the Horror film page on Wikipedia. AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

user:AdamDeanHall edit warring at Return of the Jedi

User has been repeatedly removing the iconic “it’s a trap” quote with little or no explanation. This can be seen at the top of the article history here: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Return_of_the_Jedi&action=history The quote is supported by multiple editors (see last 2 sections of https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Return_of_the_Jedi) and there’s no mandatory quote limit (Wq:LOQ is not policy). I think this counts as disruptive editing. Recommend temporarily locking to this version: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Return_of_the_Jedi&oldid=3084058 Dronebogus (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawing as it seems to have resolved itself. Dronebogus (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Protection request

Please protect Pope Benedict XVI because of repeated long-term abuse. EthanGaming7640 14:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Despicable Me (film) Still an edit war target

Requesting page protection Dronebogus (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Why not try starting a discussion on the talk page first? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have already made my feelings known regarding this page (see discussion from March above). At that time, I asked for additional admin input, but really never received any. I would again ask on of the others to take a look at the history and offer some input before I again step into it. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Restoring the 2010s and 2020s-present section

Every user who has committed each and every ban evasion has kept asking me to restore the 2010s and 2020s-present section of the Horror film page on Wikipedia. They have been doing this to me time and again, every chance they got. So could you please do something about this before another ban-evading user starts bothering me again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AdamDeanHall,

You have taken it upon yourself to remove messages, not only from your own user talk, but also from mine. Just wondering why? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ian Kershaw

The article contains some blatant selective quoting from Kershaw's biography of Adolf Hitler. For example, it lists two quotes from a paragraph on page 412:

• For Catholics—the other sub-culture which Nazism found greatest difficulty in penetrating, before and after 1933—Hitler was above all seen as the head of a ‘godless’, anti-Christian movement.
• On the nationalist-conservative Right… Hitler was portrayed for the most part as intransigent and irresponsible, a wild and vulgar demagogue, not a statesman, an obstacle to political recovery, the head of an extreme movement with menacing socialistic tendencies.

The full paragraph says:

For the Socialist and Communist left — with only minor differences between them in this regard — Hitler was portrayed as the hireling of big capitalism, the front-man for the imperialists, the political strike-force of the enemies, of the working class. Such views were to persist after 1933 in the left-wing underground resistance organizations, the underestimation of Hitler they contained hindering clear perceptions of the ideological dynamism of Nazism. For Catholics — the other sub-culture which Nazism found greatest difficulty in penetrating, before and after 1933 — Hitler was above all seen as the head of a ‘godless’, anti-Christian movement. In Protestant church-going circles, impression of Hitler varied. Some looked to the dangers of a neo-heathen movement which had roused the base instincts of the masses. Others saw the potential, at a time when church attendance was dwindling and moral and religious values were allegedly being undermined, of Hitler's 'national renewal' bringing in its wake ethical and religious revival. On the nationalist-conservative Right, the relatively sympathetic treatment of Hitler at the time of the Young Plan Campaign had given way to hostility. Hitler was portrayed for the most part as intransigent and irresponsible, a wild and vulgar demagogue, not a statesman, an obstacle to political recovery, the head of an extreme movement with menacing socialistic tendencies. Against these negative images had to be set the adulation of the third of the population that, despite the setbacks of summer and autumn, still saw in Hitler the only hope for Germany's future.

I tried to remove the selectively-used quotes, but get this error message:

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: GRP

Can you fix this? Anywikiuser (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have disabled the filter temporarily while I try to find a fix.--Ferien (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Legacy of banned user User:Libraryclerk0191

Consider for example the article Ukraine, a favorite target of User:Libraryclerk0191. Search Ukraine for the word "NATO" (as in "NATO expansion") -- 44 results. Hmm.

Another top target was 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, although that has been significantly improved since Rauisuchian listed some of its problems, for example, "cherrypicked routine reporting (not notable quotes)," "promotional links/blogspam ," "pro-Kremlin stances that are so duplicated and given such weight that it is contrary to reliable sources, etc., and no longer informative to see what the Russian state position is when it's such a large portion of the article."

LC's contribution history pinpoints articles that are important to Russian disinformation. I put a couple on my watchlist to improve, and I hope others take a look and do the same.

To clarify, I am enthusiastic about articles including quotes from a wide range of viewpoints. But Wikiquote should not be used as free advertising for fringe thinkers published by questionable sources like w:MintPress News and w:unz.com. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Update, I removed a lot of the POV-pushing from Ukraine and added some quotes from notable historians and authors who have said interesting things about Ukraine. But LC already has some successors pushing his same POV in his same favorite articles, citing his same favorite fringe unreliable sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, for the last several weeks at least there's a POV-pushing campaign running largely unchecked here. It's anti-western, anti-US, pro-Russian, and is hitting from both far right and far left. Some of the theme pages are just coatracks for anti-US propaganda. Have a look at war crimes for an outrageous example (is the US the worst committer of war crimes in history? sure looks like it from that page.)

HouseOfChange -- excellent job adding, cleaning up, restoring balance -- thank you. Antandrus (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi@Antandrus @HouseOfChange

It is not clear to me what it is you agree with:

• "for the last several weeks at least there's a POV-pushing campaign running largely unchecked heree"

AND that:

• "Banned" User:Libraryclerk0191 is the one responsible for this "campaign"?

Is Libraryclerk0191 indeed responsible for this campaign? -- I don't know and have not spent the time to figure it out. I do believe though that we should not discuss the contributions of those who have been silenced without hearing their side of the story. I think? Any comments? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: After finding Libraryclerk0191 in the page history of several problem articles, I checked to see if his contribution history would pinpoint problem articles I hadn't seen. And, it did. That's not the same as calling LC "responsible" for the ongoing campaign in those articles. The stone mason who put up headstones showed us where the dead are; is he "responsible" if someone dies next week? I care about problem articles, not about blame. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

HouseOfChange Thank you for helping to address this problem, great work on the cleanup.

There are lots of POV pushing campaigns that have or will become more obvious, and suspected astroturfing takes time from volunteer editors who have to address reverting that fringe content rather than revising and adding new notable content.

One thing I suggested earlier was an automated removal of all w:unz.com quotes (as cited on Wikipedia, "The website has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as hosting racist and antisemitic content, and the Southern Poverty Law Center which has labeled it a white nationalist publication." and the site is deprecated on w:WP:RSPSOURCES). Removal of this fringe source -- quotes from which, have neither historical notability nor secondary source notability -- would go a long way. There are multiple pages of Wikiquote results for "Unz Review". Its presence on an article is a potential red flag to look for other questionable sources being used and added by the same editors.

Like you said "Wikiquote should not be used as free advertising for fringe thinkers published by questionable sources". Along these lines, we could consider an equivalent of w:WP:ELNO for external links here as well for article quality. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Similar edits

Props to admin Ferien and others for maintaining Wikiquote and fighting vandalism. Looks like Alphabravo2022 was also blocked as a response to Libraryclerk0191 abusing multiple accounts. AlphaBravo2022's contributions page is another data point in seeing which edits are potentially POV pushing.

Separately (probably not the same "individual" but who knows) another editor fervently restoring "Unz Review" links has been detected: this IP user 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:AC93:CDBC:7BC8:319E, similar IPv6 address as a wave of correlated editors adding same fringe sources on the far right side. If admins with block abilities could review that user, that would be excellent. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, and note Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DDB1:C600:4D8C:A964:F53B:51C and Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:7823:E32D:D7B5:5EDE are also up to no good here, as is another IP in Australia Special:Contributions/121.221.66.226 with the same targets. Note that Charlottesville car attack, Waukesha parade attack, and Darrell Edward Brooks are repeat targets for hateful POV-pushing, with ZERO examples of "quotations which are notable." HouseOfChange (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

More interesting data points and correlations. Some folks on Discord noticed previous blocked users and IP ranges that appear similar to the current troll accounts.

The original sockmaster of the pro-Russia POV accounts could be User: Om777om (contributions) based on an initial trolling wave in 2019. The pattern of edits looks very similar.

Additionally, one Australian IPV6 range posts consistently far-right, racist, and anti-Semitic content and anti-vaccine misinformation. Editor indicated by that IPv6 range appears to have a history going back to 2019 or earlier. These correlations might be useful for admins to look at. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Two IPv4 ranges, here and here may be the same fringe far-right editor as the Australian IPv6 range above. This is shown by the revision history of the Abigail Thorn article where the same "The Grayzone" content is added by these IPs in an edit war. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

IP block requests

@Ferien: and others with block abilities: I am requesting blocks of this IPV6 range: 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:AC93:CDBC:7BC8:319E/64 Contribution history shows POV pushing and spamming far right external links. More detail above, but the contribution history is self evident. Thank you. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC).

My edits are fine. Anything rauisuchian thinks is "Extreme" he wants reverted. 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:C469:22F4:BE68:2A79 09:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I second this. This individual is edit warring across multiple pages and adding far right and homophobic material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing external links on Wikiquote that Wikipedia marks as deprecated or spam

Hello Wikiquote admins,

Several of the sites which Wikipedia's perennial sources noticeboard has deprecated or marked as spam, are cited widely on Wikiquote. For example, the conspiracy site "Global Research" (marked spam on Wikipedia) and the far-right "Unz Review" (marked deprecated on Wikipedia) bring up numerous results on Wikiquote. This includes external links to the fringe sites, and large passages of quotes from relatively non-notable or fringe sources. This probably also applies to other sites on the noticeboard but these are two obvious ones.

Can these links be removed from Wikiquote in all or almost all cases? Additionally, the quotes are usually undue weight. It is questionable that the viewpoint of a relatively non-notable extremist or fringe commentator (e.g. not notable enough to have their own article) actually have to be included. Reliable secondary sources would usually discuss the quote if it was notable enough to include.

Wikiquote could really be helped out by a bot that removes external links to sites that are marked spam on Wikipedia, that's the only thing the bot would have to do at first and would fix major problems. (Apologies if I have misrepresented or not been aware of existing anti-spam efforts on the part of the admins. If so, correct me.)

As a first step, perhaps Wikiquote could copy Wikipedia's spam denylist, and if the exceptions are few enough, they should be able to be removed by hand from the copied denylist. What do you think?

Thanks, Rauisuchian (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and here is the list of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, the list of deprecated source is useful and a bit more direct than just the RSPSOURCES. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Specific problematic sources

Ottawahitech had questions about this section and point on my talk page, which I have re-directed here.

The original questions by User:Ottawahitech were:

"I saw your post on WQ-AN about the Unz Review. I did not repond there becuase you addressed your post to WQ-Admins, which I am not.

I would be interested in what you have to say on this topic, though. I did a search to see how wide-spread the use of unz is on WQ and found only 31 pages that had one quote which used unz as a source for the quote. I am not sure this causes a widespread npov problem at WQ, but I really cannot be sure.

I checked one such page: Jeffrey Epstein and I have to say that the quote from Unz seemed much more tame to me than some of the other quotes. What is your take on Jeffrey Epstein? Thanks in advance,"

Link diff by User:Ottawahitech

I said "This should really go on the Noticeboard still, because it is a discussion of a proposal there, a proposal which relates to the admins."

@Ottawahitech: As was pointed out in this noticeboard and edit summaries, unz is WP:DEPRECATED on Wikipedia for various reasons including antisemitic content, copyright violations, and featuring fringe bloggers as article writers. In addition to the link to it in the deprecated sources chart, check the discussion leading to it being deprecated by unanimous consensus. One of the editor comments was: "Unz is platform open for to any crank seeking to promote the very fringe of the fringe of racist and pseudoscientific beliefs". This is why I believe, very similarly to that discussion, that we should not be putting quotes from it everywhere. Wikipedia points out with sources that the website w:unz.com has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as hosting racist and antisemitic content, and the Southern Poverty Law Center which has labeled it a white nationalist publication. Thus Unz is one of the lowest quality sources possible. There is no reason to quote it unless absolutely necessary and that has not been demonstrated.

The reason there are fewer articles using unz as a source is... because we have been removing them. By we, I mean everybody who mentioned this on the noticeboard, plus various maintaining editors (I noticed a few admins helping with reverts) who also noticed POV pushing/edit warring/vandalism by Unz-adding IPs and users/socks, reverting edit wars by those socks. (Those sockpuppets, such as GaneshaSis and Librarycler0191 and others, were all confirmed on the Noticeboard by observers, and by admins on their block pages, to be socks.) Before, there were many results for “Unz Review” in the search results. There are still too many, virtually all that remain are not notable quotes on top of being from unreliable sources and should be removed. There are currently 28 citations remaining which is likely still too much, considering the low notability and fringe nature of the source.

“I checked one such page: Jeffrey Epstein and I have to say that the quote from Unz seemed much more tame to me than some of the other quotes. What is your take on Jeffrey Epstein?” There are so many possible sources we could use to illustrate the evil of Epstein with notable quotes, that there is no need to add external links to deprecated sources on the article. Epstein’s crimes were widely discussed in mainstream reporting, despite what fringe sources say about it supposedly not being covered. Rather there are many investigative journalists that could be cited instead, especially contentious aspects like intelligence connections or conspiracy theories about his death. Generally “quotes about” should be by people with their own Wikipedia article or in publications with their own article in reliable sources. Previously in that article w:Zero Hedge was needlessly cited when Bloomberg News was available, currently there are “Quotes about” from w:MintPress News -- which is also WP:DEPRECATED by this discussion which concluded false or fabricated information was published by it -- as well as the Unz Review. One of the sockpuppets, GaneshaSis, appears heavily in the revision history adding fringe citations. Once again, the function of Wikiquote is to include notable quotes, but some of these bloggers are just too small and fringe to be citing for due weight. This applies to any article that has had deprecated sources placed in by those sockpuppets. For something specific go to the talk page of that article.

The overall point is that Wikipedia deprecated sources should also be so on Wikiquote, unless they are exceedingly notable quotes and in all the recent cases of removals and examples mentioned yet, no such exception has been found. Thanks. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to @Rauisuchian: for identifying the problem that the sock team not only pushed conspiracy theories at Wikiquote but also pushed links to conspiracy-promoting websites, where (if our users followed such a link), they would be exposed to evenworse material. And thanks to @Ottawahitech:for flagging the many problems at Jeffrey Epstein, aside from outbound links. I tried to improve that article, explaining my work on its talk page. Only in the most unusual circumstances should the "specialness" of a quote from a WP:DEPRECATED source overcome the downsides of sharing such links here. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested revision for "Welcome Newcomers" section:

This is being posted with sincere best wishes & hopes that this will prove to be helpful to this project. Suggest that the text on the welcome newcomers page be updated for the sake of honesty. Suggestions follow excerpts of the actual text, and are in bold
Wikiquote:Welcome,_newcomers

• We sincerely hope this feedback will help more see facts (reality) of the situation as some other see it.
  • LibraryClerk0191

• The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks.
  • Jimmy Wales

• Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed.
  • William Faulkner

In opposing a sockpuppet battalion using lying and deception to force their POV on Wikiquote, we are most definitely raising our voices for honesty and truth, so there's that. Thank you Mr. Faulkner. And I can add this bit from The Sound and the Fury: "...and victory is an illusion of philosophers and fools." We're not trying to "win" anything, O mighty sockpuppeteer -- we're trying to create a complete and neutral-point-of-view collection of quotes. If you come in good faith you can edit. But not this way. There's nothing "good faith" about making multiple accounts to present the illusion of being multiple people. Nothing. Ever. Antandrus (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

When are userpages deleted on WQ and when are they not?

Every once in a while I discover users who have had their userpage deleted. It is not always done at a user's request (it happened to me a long time ago on a wmf-sister website), and the public reasons recorded by the deleting admin are sometimes ambiguous, if present at all.

I wonder about this because I have noticed quite a large turnover of admins at WQ, and some admins who treat WQ as a secondary, or even as a stepping stone, residence. Am I the only one here worried about the loss of community-memory? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, user pages are only deleted if a user requests it or if it is pure spam. We don't get very many user pages used for vandalism often but if a page was just created for vandalism, it will also be deleted.

With your second point, Wikiquote is not my home wiki (so you might say I count as one of those admins you are talking about) but I don't intend to delete random things and I don't think that's the case with anyone else. I can't see any admin here deleting a page for the hell of it, so I don't think you have to worry about old user pages being lost. Regards, --Ferien (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Clean up on Aisle Five

Every major U.S. war of the last several decades has begun the same way: the U.S. government fabricates an inflammatory, emotionally provocative lie which large U.S. media outlets uncritically treat as truth while refusing at air questioning or dissent, thus inflaming primal anger against the country the U.S. wants to attack... ~ Glenn Greenwald

Sorry for the horrible image. I've recently seen it a lot, because it's a favorite of one POV-pushing editor who has added it here to lots of different articles.

By an abuse of multiple accounts, that POV-pushing editor has succeeded in disguising the extent of his solo contribution to many articles. He/she/they used Wikiquote to push pro-Kremlin, anti-Ukraine, anti-Israel, and anti-US editorializing, presented as "quotes."

For example" edits between March 2020 and Feb 17, 2022 to the article International law. Quite the slant in those edits. Now take a look at the account names below (shown with their date of creation) all now blocked for being "run" by the same person.

• Special:Contributions/GaneshaSis (First edit made 10 January 2020)
• Special:Contributions/EarthLibrarian (19 January 2020)
• Special:Contributions/Will-SeymoreIII (21 January 2020)
• Special:Contributions/Libraryclerk0191 (7 February 2020)
• Special:Contributions/WeNotMeC020 (23 March 2020)
• Special:Contributions/Alphabravo2022 (24 March 2022)
• Special:Contributions/Alicia-abdula-mcdonald (27 March 2022)

Now take a look at the page history of International law and notice that every single edit made between March 2020 and Feb. 17, 2022 was made by a single person, disguising his hand by using all those different usernames.

Two years of hard work by this person left a mess needing cleanup. I have been trying, at 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis‎ and Ukraine. War crimes and Brainwashing are two more I've tried to fix. I would welcome advice on how we as a project can tackle this problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Oy veh, is my first response. I started to make a list this morning, of theme pages needing cleanup -- this list is incomplete (feel free to add to it!) -- most horrifying is that many of these theme pages were created by one of the (usually blocked) sockpuppets, and almost every subsequent edit is by the same person running one or another of the accounts listed above. This list does not include people, although it could. Strikes me that a WQ page on a right- or left-wing extremists is a logical place for extremist quotes, so -- maybe that's fine. But I don't think it's fine having pages like war crimes where absolutely every "quote" is an unquotable slab of babble about how the US and its cronies commit and have committed all the war crimes ever. I exaggerate, but not by much. Not by much. This is a mess.

• Allegation
• Anti-intellectualism
• Big lie
• Censorship
• Colonialism
• Conscience
• Corruption
• Cover-up
• Cowardice
• Denial
• Diplomacy
• Fanaticism
• Foreign policy of the United States
• Freedom
• Genocide denial
• Hegemony
• Hypocrisy
• Information Warfare Community
• Integrity
• Leadership
• Mafia state
• Mainstream media
• Mass media
• Misinformation
• Nuclear power
• Philistinism
• Power
• Propaganda
• Reality
• Regret
• Rule of law
• Self-pity
• Sensationalism
• Truth
• Tyranny
• Utopia
• War
• War crimes

Feel free to add, remove, revise. We could italicize them when done, or initial, or something. Some quotes are probably fine; I've been trying to look individually rather than just blanket revert, but -- what is the best way? Antandrus (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Antandrus: Closely related: articles that were created by, and predominantly edited by, these accounts:

• Big lie created by Will-SeymoreIII on March 2, 2022.
• Chevron Corporation created by GaneshaSis, just a COATRACK for material denouncing its treatment of Steven Donziger -- not a real "quote" between them. I nominated both for deletion on April 14.
• Cover-up, Allegation, and Misinformation, created by Alphabravo2022 on April 5, April 6, and April 6 respectively.
• Global catastrophic risk created by Libraryclerk0191 on February 26, 2022 from a copy-paste of Nuclear weapons, another article targeted by the team.
• Honduras created by Will-SeymoreIII, and it would be good to have an article about Honduras but this article is not about Honduras, it is just political POV-pushing
• Hysteria created by Libraryclerk0191 on March 10, 2022
• International Monetary Fund created by GaneshaSis
• Mafia state created by Alphabravo2022 on March 30, 2022, about half of which is quotes from Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (an article created by WeNotMeC020)
• Moral panic created by Will-SeymoreIII on March 12, 2022
• Mutual assured destruction created by Libraryclerk0191 on March 10, 2022
• Theodore Postol created by Alphabravo2022 on March 30, 2022 is taken entirely from one essay by Postol on the danger of nuclear war and very likely violates copyright law
• United States embargo against Cuba created by GaneshaSis
• United States sanctions created by GaneshaSis

It's hard to imagine a reader who wants a notable quote about Chevron or IMF or United States sanctions -- but if they did, those articles would not provide even one for them. Aside from Honduras, these should be stubs or re-directs to a useful topic until/unless some helpful person creates a real article. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Also trimmed Decadence and Scarcity, 2 stubs created and inflated by Will-SeymoreIII. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange, Antandrus: Thank you so much HouseOfChange and Antandrus for compiling these lists, this section is an excellent resource documenting the troll activity. The funny and sad part is I recognize seeing that exact image on several articles. As for notability of content, fully agreed on all points and there's not much else I've noticed yet, besides the same editors. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rauisuchian, Antandrus: I nominated Steven Donziger and Chevron Corporation at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion. I think I did something wrong with the template, but I hope somebody there can fix it properly. I am going to put those article titles in italics, above, and if they get deleted I will use strike tags, assuming they work here. Step by step. And I got my taxes submitted as well. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the VfDs are correct now (haven't done this before on WQ). Congratulations on the taxes :)

Update, I am going to add italics to article titles where I have tried to start fixing them. If others do the same, the articles that may need help will stand out a bit more. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Antandrus@HouseOfChange @Rauisuchian: Shouldn't this discussion be taking place on the respective talk pages of the articles mentioned above? Not all contributors of WQ read this noticeboard. If one wishes to involve the community in these discussions, one has to post where the community expects a discussion to take place. I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Offtopic: @HouseOfChange, in regards to your comment about taxes above and since you said (through your edit summary):

more italics, and yes, Easter is a holiday for me as well. Happy chocolate eggs to all who indulge!

I thoght you will be pleased to find out that according to the website down detector the websites Taxslayer, Turbotax, IRS & H&R Block are right at the top of the charts for problems today, not only in North America but also in Europe, Asia , and more. I presume that means that:

1. Many people around the world have to file taxes in the USA
2. Many people worldwide are not enjoying Easter, but instead are busy trying to get their taxes done Ottawahitech (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Update, I nominated at AfD a small set of the socks' articles, ones on topics unlikely to attract good quotes that function instead as fake Wikipedia articles, one-sided assertions presented as facts about their topics. See Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/FakeWikipedia if you want to comment. Adding italics to those articles listed above. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Update, admin @BD2412: suggested on my talk page that I make a talk page display of removed quotes. I went back to Propaganda, where on April 25 i removed a lot of the socks' POV pushing including the screaming face and an utterly off-topic Abu Ghraib image. I added an explanation of each diff including ALL the removed quotes to the article talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Separate issue, requested block for white-nationalist IP

We still need a rangeblock on that IPv6 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:AC93:CDBC:7BC8:319E/64 from Australia. Any admins watching? @Ferien:, can you help? That person pushes racist rubbish - this is typical. "Counter-currents.com" is a white nationalist/white supremacist website, one of the ones trying to look respectable, like a set of freshly laundered KKK sheets. Antandrus (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted more of the edits and blocked the latest incarnations of this user - but here is where I confess my technical limitations again (I am more of a content person than a technical one). I need some help regarding the necessary range block to better combat this situation. My knowledge and experience in these is rather limited (and in this case, it appears a bit more complex than usual). I have reviewed again this page, but can anyone help provide some better guidance? ~ UDScott (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @UDScott: -- I'm not an admin here, obviously, but if the syntax is like it is on enwiki (pretty sure it's identical) you should be able to click either on 2001:8003:DDAA:5A00:AC93:CDBC:7BC8:319E/64 here and look for the "block" button, or maybe try this (I've formatted the enwiki block link to be usable here). Antandrus (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

UDScott, TonyBallioni explains it much better on a Wikipedia essay - w:WP:64. Blocking the /64 will usually block just one person, although if you're unsure whether it's one person from the contributions then you should just block the one IP. --Ferien (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Who has Check User (CU) status on WQ?

I have been trying to follow the recent torrent of posts to this notice board without much success. One thing that has not been discussed is who at WQ has access to CU information.

I have included the following text from w:Wikipedia:CheckUser:

On the English Wikipedia, CheckUser access is entrusted to a restricted number of trusted users who can execute CheckUser inquiries at their own discretion. The permission is granted by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, after community consultation and vetting of the editor by the committee’s members and the functionary team. While there is no formal requirement that checkusers also be administrators, the Arbitration Committee has traditionally restricted applications to users who are currently administrators. Checkusers must be 18 years of age or older and have signed the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information before being appointed. The use of the CheckUser tool on the English Wikipedia is monitored and controlled by the Arbitration Committee, and checkusers may have their permissions revoked by the Arbitration Committee for misuse or abuse of the tool.

I would like to know if the same applies at WQ? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody here has it. Our admins get help from the Wikimedia foundation if checkuser is needed here. It was checkuser done by those stewards that determined the misuse of multiple accounts we are now cleaning up from. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good question. Looks like we do not have any current checkusers, and "Requests for checkuser actions can be made on the noticeboard and a steward can be notified if needed." (As HoC indicates, we had help from stewards doing CU a couple days ago in unmasking the Libraryclerk sockpuppets listed above.) Antandrus (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah. We don't have it. It requires a majority support and at least 25 users in support in an election on a project without an ArbCom. We just don't have enough active users to get 25 supports in an election. GMG^talk 18:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Although we used to have a couple in the past - but I don't think they are active users (or even still have it) any more. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

UDScott, indeed, we don't have any checkusers anymore. --Ferien (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Comparison of privacy protection between Wikiquote (WQ) and the English Wikipedia (ENWP)

I guess everyone here agrees that the WMF Stewards decide who is a socketpuppet at WQ, not the WQ-admins who merely block the local sockpuppets?

If so, I guess the inhabitants of WQ have no say and do not enjoy the same protections that are available to those who contribute to ENWP. What I mean by that is that sockpuppet investigations at ENWP are public and open to any member of the community who wishes to voice an opinion. For example (thanks to User:Ferien for the following link): w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pcmishradigital/Archive

Also it means that the privacy of all community members is protected by the community, not only by the few who are serving as Stewards? Thanks for your thoughts, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: People at Wikiquote can request and comment on checkuser requests made at m:SRCU. In terms of privacy, as far as I'm aware, stewards do not go around checking community members' accounts unless a request is made at SRCU and there is good reason to suspect sockpuppetry, although I may be wrong. Stewards always work with the community, never against them, and most actions stewards take (global locks, global blocks, GS actions etc.) are supposed to be uncontroversial. --Ferien (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ferien: Thanks for responding, especially during Easter, a holiday for many WQ contributors, I think?

I wonder if you would be kind enough to provide pointers to readers who want to locate this particular check-user request on META-SRCU. I don't believe a direct link has been provided in any of the preceding posts(?).Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, there wasn't a checkuser request for this one, but the one user (Libraryclerk0191) was already blocked when the check was made and there were many accounts displaying very similar behaviour. And yes, Easter is a holiday for me. -- Ferien (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(Thanks @ Ferien, please feel free to finish your Easter in peace. The rest of this is directed at the WQ community at large)

Here is what the block log for Libraryclerk0191 currently says:

22:42, 11 April 2022 Ferien talk contribs changed block settings for Libraryclerk0191 talk contribs with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Harassment: also disruption w/ false information / suspecting Russian propaganda. Also found to be abusing multiple accounts) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit

In the interest of transparency and inclusiveness it should also include a META-CU request&decision link, don’t you agree? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

These are sockpuppets of a user who has been adding pro-Russian propaganda since 2019, with cross-project concerns as well. I don't see what the issue is. Vermont (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vermont,

Yes I agree it is difficult to follow this topic as it unfolds here. Having said that may I ask a couple of questions:

• Are you speaking as a private individual or are you speaking as a spokesperson for all wmf-Stewards?
• Do you feel that individuals who are involved in WQ "editing" are entitled to online privacy?
• Do you believe that Wikiquotiens are not entitled to the same protections that are afforded to Wikipedians?
• How do you know that "These are sockpuppets of a user who has been adding pro-Russian propaganda since 2019, with cross-project concerns as well"?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure.

• I am always speaking as a private individual, I do not speak on behalf of all Stewards. And Stewards are not part of or related to the WMF. We're elected by the community, as you know.
• Individuals who edit Wikimedia projects are entitled to data privacy. For specifics, please refer to the Privacy policy.
• Editors of Wikimedia projects are all subject to the same privacy policy.
• Because I ran a check, and because I am somewhat familiar with this contributor.

I hope this answers your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help clarify. Vermont (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: (EC) I don't support adding new rules unless there's a problem the new rule would solve. I am grateful to Ferien for blocking the abusive sock and have zero problem with how Ferien did it. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

So you guys are saying that a conclusion was made that all these accounts are sockpuppets without a checkuser investigation? In the interest of maintaining transparency and adhering to the Wikimedia standards, all communication based on which this was decided should be made public. - Emilija Knezevic (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Emilijaknezevic: Nobody said that these blocks were made "without a checkuser investigation." The checkuser was done, by a steward, on a small set of accounts identified as probable socks. Why did people think they were socks? They repeatedly edited the same articles, often obscure ones. For example, on March 11, LibraryClerk creates a new article Hysteria and within 24 hours GaneshaSis and WeNotMeC020 LC edit there. Honduras was created by one sock but edited by 3 others as well. Checkuser exists to stop people from abusing multiple accounts. This person was abusing multiple accounts for more than a year, and in the process making Wikiquote notably worse. As far as I can tell, nobody other than Ottawahitech has complained about what happened or how it was done. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand the interest in transparency. It's important (and ironically, this very thing was a theme with these sockpuppets, who babbled on and on about supposed lack-of-transparency, conspiracies, tails-wagging-dogs, nefarious plans by Global Evil Entities, governments hiding things, etc. etc.) -- however this is the way things go on small wikis that do not have the means to keep their own boards of checkusers, arbitrators, oversighters, and so forth. The bigger the project, the more bureaucratic it becomes. The smaller, the more free of bureaucracy -- and the more vulnerable to abuse. That's what happened here. When someone makes a sockpuppet battalion and gets away with pushing a POV for years (since 2019) before being caught, that's a catastrophe for an open project. A visitor to one of our sockpuppet-created pages is going to look at it and laugh -- this is NPOV? give me a break, they'd say -- for none of those pages were remotely NPOV! The pages screamed of an astroturfing campaign -- the socks pushed and pushed to make basic topics like war crimes about one thing and one thing only: alleged war crimes committed by one especially hated party.

As I see it, asking a trusted steward to do a checkuser on a band of screaming obvious socks was an essential and easy way to solve this. How else? Should we have attempted to set up a local checkuser facility first? Maybe so! There may be policy solutions we haven't tried yet. Do we need a global sockpuppet investigation page, on Meta, for smallish projects that don't have their own (i.e. not enwiki, dewiki, etc.)?

Open to ideas. I just want to see Wikiquote better defended from POV-pushing campaigns. I think that's probably an important goal for us all. Antandrus (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Antandrus, you said: As I see it, asking a trusted steward to do a checkuser was an essential and easy way to solve this

Are you suggesting that newly-minted WQ-admin @Ferien did not follow his own advice to

People at Wikiquote can request and comment on checkuser requests made at m:SRCU

but instead privately contacted his fellow simple-wiki-admin User:Vermont with a request to go on a fishing trip to identify a band of screaming obvious socks at WQ?

Just trying to verify that this is what you said above, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: Actually, it was the other way around. Vermont got in contact with me after noticing that these may be socks and then gave the account names to me to block. --Ferien (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

GRP returns

and is vandalizing Deception, September 11 attacks, The Pentagon, Hatred, and User talk:EthanGaming7640. Stop him. EthanGaming7640 13:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@EthanGaming7640 Is this in regard to [4] ?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global de-adminship for Jusjih

A user is requesting to "global de-admin" (sorry I really don't know how likely if this could be happened) @Jusjih: which in requestor's claim, has many disruptive and abusive behaviors in several Chinese-language projects and Meta-Wiki, the requestor is also mentioned en.wikiquote here where Jusjih is also an administrator, but didn't say anything else on their en.wikiquote's behaviors. Do any of our adminships that may or may not familiar Jusjih's works know how to resolve it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226, Thank you so much for bringing this discussion on Meta to the attention of those who read this busy notice-board. It is not often that we are informed by someone who is not a wmf-employee of events happening on other wmf-projects.

I myself cannot participate on Meta where I am infinitely blocked (I am probably not unique), but I still appreciate being notified since the person being discussed (@Jusjih:) is also a WQ-admin. However, I would like to ask other participants here if it wouldn't be better to post this on the Village Pump for those who do not read this politics-noticeboard

Do others here have an opinion they would like to share? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: you can see the discussion by clicking on section title. There seems to be a dispute in some zh-wikis, where some of their admins complained about Jusijih, also an admin there, using this RfC. The general admin response to the complaint seems to be OFFS, with which I agree. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange,

Re: you can see the discussion

I know I can view the discussions on META. What I cannot do is participate.

Re: RfC, OFFS

What do those mean - can you provide a link please

Re: User:Jusjih

Jusijih is not an admin here on Wikiquote, but Jusjih is Ottawahitech (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Re Jusjih/Jusijih, my bad spelling. RfC = Request for Comment, e.g. w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment. OFFS = "Oh, for fuck's sake." I guess FFS is more common. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)