Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037


User:Babe kebabEdit


68.193.175.208Edit

@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
@DannyS712:
@Tegel:
@Saroj Uprety:

68.193.175.208 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

PlumerlumberEdit

@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
@DannyS712:
@Tegel:
@Saroj Uprety:

Plumerlumber (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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. GMGtalk 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/24Edit

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

Wikipedia sockpuppets- blocks neededEdit

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

Blocks needed here for:

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

Template:Italic titleEdit

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 permissionEdit

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. GMGtalk 10:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

spamEdit

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 ActionEdit

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)TCM 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 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)
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)
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...Edit

@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 QOTDEdit

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 vandalismEdit

@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)

ProtectionEdit

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)Edit

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

DeleteEdit

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

IP user 58.178.68.99Edit

58.178.68.99 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

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...Edit

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. GMGtalk 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 vandalismEdit

...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 protectedEdit

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

Protection requestEdit

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 VEdit

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)

WikiquoteEdit

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

WQ:TEMPEdit

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, 2015Edit

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)

deleteEdit

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 protectionEdit

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)

BlockEdit

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)

BlockEdit

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

Protect The Addams Family (film)Edit

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 (talkcontribs) .

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

Block 58.178.68.99‎Edit

58.178.68.99‎ (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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. GMGtalk 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

RequestEdit

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 67.204.55.251Edit

67.204.55.251 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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 requestEdit

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)

62.252.201.33Edit

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 requestEdit

...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 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) DawgDeputy (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Revdel requestEdit

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 requestEdit

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)

ProtectionEdit

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 BeriaEdit

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 requestEdit

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 GMGtalk 19:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

BLOCK REQUEST URGENTEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 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:RugratsEdit

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)

ProtectionEdit

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 protectionEdit

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-19Edit

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)

RequestEdit

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:33B2Edit

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

Total Drama Action talk page vandalismEdit

@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 deletionEdit

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.comEdit

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

BlockEdit

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)TCM 05:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

美好的时光好孩子 (talk · contributions)Edit

Please consider blocking 美好的时光好孩子 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)TCM 05:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

2603:6080:A700:1C39:C589:6817:F2A8:1B04Edit

Blocked by someone else. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Looney Tunes: Back in ActionEdit

@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)

152.86.164.35Edit

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)TCM 16:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Koavf. They are continuing on the account StevwRudueieh (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). Ferien (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Blocked. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 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)TCM 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)

108.207.249.33Edit

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

BlockEdit

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

Globally blocked. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nuke and BlockEdit

Nuke all pages by Chuogcyui (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) and block indefinitely for mass spam campaign here --Synoman Barris (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:102.64.165.103Edit

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

Deleted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

BlockEdit

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

Blocked. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

SupermanEdit

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 stopEdit

1.152.108.86 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock 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)TCM 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 progressEdit

152.22.84.23 (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock 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)Edit

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 (talkcontribs) .
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)

ScytlEdit

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)

152.117.105.92Edit

@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
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)TCM 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)TCM 17:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Has Wikiquote:Votes for deletion been abandoned?Edit

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 LTAEdit

I sleep, I sleep! (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) --Synoman Barris (talk) 15:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

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

ProtectEdit

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)

RequestEdit

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)TCM 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)

88.7.214.219Edit

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

Done, thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Histmerge requiredEdit

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)TCM 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)TCM 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:Edit

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)TCM 19:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

152.117.105.92Edit

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

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 totalitarianismEdit

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 disputeEdit

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:
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)
  • @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)TCM 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)TCM 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:

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)TCM 19:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
          Fair enough. Dronebogus (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

More DawgDeputy edit warfareEdit

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.

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 inputEdit

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 returnsEdit

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

Protected. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 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)TCM 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)TCM 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:Edit

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)

102.184.31.218Edit

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.Edit

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.Edit

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)

RequestEdit

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)Edit

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 protectionEdit

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.Edit

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 JediEdit

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 requestEdit

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 targetEdit

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 sectionEdit

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 KershawEdit

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:Libraryclerk0191Edit

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:
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 editsEdit

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 requestsEdit

@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 spamEdit

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 sourcesEdit

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:Edit

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

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 FiveEdit

 
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.

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.
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:
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 IPEdit

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?Edit

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. GMGtalk 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)Edit

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 returnsEdit

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 JusjihEdit

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)