Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/040

New special page to fight spam


Please help translate to your language

Hello, We are replacing most of the functionalities of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist with a new special page called Special:BlockedExternalDomains. In this special page, admins can simply add a domain and notes on the block (usually reasoning and/or link to a discussion) and the added domain would automatically be blocked to be linked in Wikis anymore (including its subdomains). Content of this list is stored in MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json. You can see w:fa:Special:BlockedExternalDomains as an example. Check the phabricator ticket for more information.

This would make fighting spam easier and safer without needing to know regex or accidentally breaking wikis while also addressing the need to have some notes next to each domain on why it’s blocked. It would also make the list of blocked domains searchable and would make editing Wikis in general faster by optimizing matching links added against the blocked list in every edit (see phab:T337431#8936498 for some measurements).

If you want to migrate your entries in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, there is a python script in phab:P49299 that would produce contents of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json for you automatically migrating off simple regex cases.

Note that this new feature doesn’t support regex (for complex cases) nor URL paths matching. Also it doesn’t support bypass by spam whitelist. For those, please either keep using MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or switch to an abuse filter if possible. And adding a link to the list might take up to five minutes to be fully in effect (due to server-side caching, this is already the case with the old system) and admins and bots automatically bypass the blocked list.

Let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues. Happy editing. Amir (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please resolve Soul Eater VfDs


I really recommend dealing will VfD promptly so as not having to deal will the mess of some Soul Eater related articles. Can an admin check the WQ:VFD list and resolve duplicates. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 08:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plea to please manage deletion processes more promptly


I know I sound like an old gramophone record but can I please request administrators manage the deletion process queues promptly. I really appreciate the time you guys put in, I (probably as much as anyone) know people have RL priorities that must come first to avoid personal RL hell and if your in the northern hemisphere its summertime with longer daylight hours for many of us to do daylight things. I've ended up sending far too many articles to deletion processes over the past couple of weeks and its painfully apparent to me stuff has been there already for far to long adding to the clutter. I am particularly of the opinion articles on the VfD queue should normally be closed within the month and certainly no more than 8 weeks. There's alway's DRV to challenge an incorrect result. There's at least a couple of instances where excess time on the VfD queue has caused an issue, the most recent with duplicate VFD's raised. Not to mention the effect on the Unconnected pages in mainspace list which has gone from 3 to near 30. That makes it more difficult to spot de-sitelinks from Wikidata which I've challenged twice in the last week; I realise that is only an impact to me as most admins here don't operate in the Sitelinking zone. Thankyou if you can help in this regard. -- DeirgeDel tac 22:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing response


Thankyou for efforts on the VFD queue but quite frankly its insufficient. The long standing items on the front end of this list need to be tackled. If there's a problem on Competency or Capacity to deal with this there needs to a call bring in admins to help either from on-wiki, a sister project, or from small wiki support. Thankyou, DeirgeDel tac 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeirgeDel: You do rather sound like an old gramophone record -- so -- can I please request that you stop using this page to plead with and then chastise our small administrative team? We are all volunteers, of course, so you have no more need to go along with my wishes than they have to go along with yours. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange:: I agree I sound like a old gramophone record and and I agree I shouldn't have to. My opinion is a VFD is stressful for the article contributors and the community (in this case it is the adminstrators) has a duty to decide such matters quickly. When a VFD is closed there is a community decision and a community precedent. It doesn't have to go the way I (or anyone) would like it to do and DRV exists to appeal any errors. The community keep/delete decision may also affect in a small number of cases whether a wikidata needs to be created or not. Quite frankly I'd prefer to be be working positively with campaigns and new users to ensure the're no misdirecting people to articles that will be corrected, but that to some extent is impacted on deletion processes being cleared quickly. I'm not chastising individuals but its surely reasonable they get on the're email group and see if there are ways things can be improved. -- DeirgeDel tac 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with any WQ policy that declares it a duty of admins to close VfDs or do anything else quickly. I suggest you drop the stick concerning this issue, which is very unlikely to bring you satisfaction or to improve anybody else's experience. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange:: Suggestion noted. -- DeirgeDel tac 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I need to also note personal attacks and outing attempts on one VfD recently and failure to address those attacks and outing attempts. I am minded it should be patently obvious that those attacks and outing attempts should be dealt with by uninvolved parties. Shameful no actions have been taken on such abuse. Would you not agree @HouseOfChange:? -- DeirgeDel tac 05:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeirgeDel: Volunteer settings like wikis are rarely perfect. I guess I missed the ANI where an injured person described attacks to admins and admins took action or didn't. But in general, I don't agree that describing colleagues' behavior as "disappointing," "insufficient," or "shameful" is appropriate to a workplace setting, let alone one staffed by volunteers. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have perhaps made it clear that I feel disappointed as the response which is acceptable for how I feel. That's a little different from me being disappointed at individuals. But the fundamental issue is I believe there is a problem because, and lets particularly concentrate on VfDs, are not being closed quickly enough. If we take the example of the site English Wikipedia of AfD's which are the rough equivalent of VfD's the mechanism get's these closed within 2, 3 or at most 4 weeks. The length here is indeterminate. And being open for a long time has detrimental effects: both from a contributor stresspoint viewpoint and also by making it harder to spot items from the Unconnected mainspace pages list (Such as [ Kasaija yesterday] which had slipped through looking like an older page as it had been sandbox. If you looked at my contributions to wikiquote yesterday you'd think I was mostly about deletion processes: If you look at Wikidata constributions you'd perhaps see examples of the support given to a lot of the new articles coming through. The problem is that become increasingly time-consuming the unconnected pages list is kept unncessary long by not processing VfD's promptly. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 10:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and thanks


I'd like to thank admins generally and @Saroj Uprety: in particular for participating and closing pages on the VFD list today; in at least one case taking significant unwarranted abuse for doing do. I'd like to say to Saroj I really appreciate the work he often puts in weekly to maintain the VfD list. In the interests of neutrality I rarely hit the thank log for VFD votes and closes but I might for some clerking and extremely rarely for e.g. policy/guidance analysis. Thanks again. -- DeirgeDel tac 23:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was protected for about 15 years. I have unprotected it so an IP can edit. If anyone feels like this is a bad idea, please feel free to escalate protection. I'm inclined against indef protection in the main namespace, but willing to defer to someone else's judgement. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sitelinking Wikidata.


@Mike Peel:: About three months ago you felt you could offer a tool to help with sitelinking Wikidata items. I realise you've been a little busy but can you give an update on this. I've tried to keep on top of things in the interim but there's very little appreciation of the effort I'm making here and very little being done to help. In my opinion in addition to regular vandalisation and socking we've also been hit, in my opinion, by what appears to be very poor directions, communication and support by WMF campaigns. I don't mean to rush you, and your pretty busy, and if you can't provide the tool that's OK. But please give an update. Thankyou. -- DeirgeDel tac 17:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DeirgeDel: I'm ~90% of the way there, but hit an issue I can't currently solve. I have a script that fetches the unlinked items, and loads potential matches into a database. I have a Distributed Game drafted, the same as the Wikipedia one but working for Wikiquote. However, I can't get the Game to properly load the tiles, which might need @Magnus Manske: to fix something or tell me what I'm doing wrong, but tweets got no response. If I can figure that issue out, then everything else is pretty much ready to go/straightforward to do. I'll try to have another look through all of the code later this month, at least I could start creating new items for pages without search matches... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel:: Thanks for the update. While we'd love it asap I certainly understand you and Magnus will have higher priorities, let alone RL priorities. Thanks. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation tools


The citation tools on this wiki have fallen way below the standards on other Wiki's. Are there any plans to address this? -- DeirgeDel tac 17:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citations made with ref markup tag can be archived I Propose switch to REF citations Baratiiman (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]



I assume there are no bots running here to avoid the curse of W:WP:LINKROT. Fundamentally this will lead to nearly all urls becoming dead and unverifiable with the passage of time. Thankyou -- DeirgeDel tac 17:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls protection


Requesting page protection for The Powerpuff Girls. IP users repeatedly copy and paste entire episode transcripts in violation of Wikiquote:Limits on quotations, despite repeated warnings.

Spiritoftheeast1993 (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done with some minimal protections. Let me know if it needs to be escalated. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing


Would you please block these two users for disruptive editing? These are the two I’m talking about:

Special:Contributions/ Special:Contributions/

Please have them blocked as soon as possible. AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me diffs that are bad edits? Looking at a few, no less than one is clearly appropriate: Actual diffs or some explanation would be helpful. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the different that are bad edits. AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about this that is a bad edit. You are not being serious and wasting others' time. If you have something useful to write, please do so. Otherwise, this cryptic and inaccurate report is just not helpful. What is bad about these users' edits and why do you think they warrant blocks? If your complaint is about overly long quotations, that is a systemic problem here and I posted to their talk pages already. If it's not that, then what is the problem with this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please semi-protect Hercules (1997 film)


It has been vandalized many times since June. Count Count (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 07:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overly long quotations


This user, Special:Contributions/Jaiquiero, just added an overly long quotation to the Femme Fatales page. Here is the difference:

Could you please inform the user never to do that again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. I'm hopeful that he'll be responsive. If this persists, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An ongoing case requesting for unblock has been post to our mailing-list


I've accepted the email so it can be showed in our mailing list.

The requester is User:Wheatfromchaff, since in their email they specially pointed me as a corrupted sysop, I'd like to say something about it.

Wheatfromchaff (talk · contributions) Firstly blocked by Ningauble for a month, then during the discussion for extending block, lots of puppets appeared on user talk:Ningauble, trying to disrupt the discussion. I suspected that they are IP socks from Wheatfromchaff and then blocked them indefinitely. Due to their edits on talk page attacked nearly every sysop, although they claimed in their email that it's just a matter of fact, I've revoked their talk page access.

I'm inclined to decline this unblock request directly, but in the last paragraph, they told they will contact Wikimedia Foundation and considered this a huge problem if we didn't unblock them. More over, since I'm the involved party, I'm taking this case to the WQ:AN for more instructions. Lemonaka (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you wrote your above comment, I also responded on email. re: the WMF, whatever: the guy can write them and that's fine for him, but it's not going to result in a local unblock. Everyone working and volunteering has a million other things to do and they don't get involved in local disputes without some extraordinary qualities that this dispute does not have. As for instructions, I don't have any insight on what else you need to do now; we'll see if the email exchange has anything useful. I'm not holding out much hope, but I've been wrong before. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find RS that could establish notability either for the author or the book in question, but came up dry. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferien I'm sending you an email regarding the issue I've found about this mailing list ownself. Also, @Koavf Lemonaka (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka I just found out that this list exists and have submitted a subscription request DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712  Y Approved Lemonaka (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please block

edit is likely evading their global ban per w:en:WP:LTA/GRP. 64andtim (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And 64andtim (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done Revdel and page protect. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protect user talk:Jimbo Wales as indefinite


Hi, I'm proposing to protect this page indefinitely, since Jimbo seldom has a look on that page and nearly all edits on this page are something trolls or vandalism. Lemonaka (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I went for it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, since mailing list are set, the last sentence of this template can be changed to
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please submit a request to the wikiquote-en-admins

Instead of
Instead, you can create a new account (if allowed) to allow you to edit.

The sentence in used now may encourage some blocked editors to create sockpuppets, they may misunderstand "if allowed" in that sentence, and creating a new account to edit is usually not allowed in nearly every situation. Lemonaka (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - seems reasonable. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf@UDScott Done Lemonaka (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please block


They are placing really offensive material on the page Megamind. 64andtim (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]



I'm not sure whether ConnieTheJesusLover (talk · contributions) was editing in good faith, they edited in a very suspicious way, taking Abuse filter logs into consideration, something really weird. e.g. their edits to SpongeBob topics, with huge amounts of content being replaced. Lemonaka (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything egregious. It seems like, based on this edit that Connie is copy/pasting from Wikia, which is allowed by the license, but should be attributed if it's actually a unique arrangement of quotations that rises to a copyright-able level. Do you have diffs that seem off to you? —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard about Sponge-Hab, Pat-Buck, Kenneth and Shake from Spongebob, looking at this one Special:Diff/3368161 Lemonaka (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can say with a high degree of confidence that SpongeBob never included the line "I want to do some porn." GMGtalk 17:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo All edits reverted except Special:Diff/3368124, which is a helpful copy edit. Lemonaka (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah. That's way off. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel request for incivil edit summaries at SpongeBob SquarePants/Season 11


I think edit summaries at special:diff/3376637, special:diff/3376636, special:diff/3376635, special:diff/3376634 need to be removed due to incivility. What do our admins think about these? MathXplore (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree.  Y Done and also blocked indefinitely. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]



I've blocked 2600:1700:BC00:F8B0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contributions) for a month, their edits are the same as EdithGruFan (talk · contributions), especially the rants in their edit summary.
I'd like to rollback all edits from these range, but I'd also like to wait for advice from other sysops. Lemonaka (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these edits are fine, but honestly, this person is all over the place and his edits have a problem that many, many edits have here which is excessively long quotations. I'd 100% support a mass revert and delete if you felt it was appropriate. Not necessarily what I'd do, but totally valid. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all LTA on this project, especially unregistered ones make edit on SpongeBob related articles. You see, previous three topics are all about Spongebob, can we semi-protect these articles indefinitely? Lemonaka (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't like indefinite protection, except for more sensitive pages, but I would totally support you doing so here, since for some reason, this topic seems to be a vandalism magnet. I will support indefinite or long-term (e.g. three-year) semi-protection. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this IP as they are doing test edits on Castle (deleting and partial undeleting with selected revisions might be useful). 64andtim (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already reported this IP to WQ:VIP. MathXplore (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 02:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. Please block this ip MdsShakil (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MdsShakil Done, please report to WQ:VIP next time. Lemonaka (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Baratiiman (talk · contributions) edit warred on 2023 Israel–Hamas war, calling others as LTA without reasons, unresponsive to the invitation to discuss and get consensus but revert. Since I'm the involved sysop, I'm here asking for help.--Lemonaka (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3 Question marks is not an explaination it never is specialy wikiquote . This isnt wikipedia Baratiiman (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given your storied history on the Persian Wikipedia, I would recommend you tread lightly and play nice. GMGtalk 15:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, I cannot quite catch you in this sentence. After consulting with @Ottawahitech, they believed your quotes added to article are not quotable. So you may discuss with each other, no matter here, on article talk page or user talk page.
But keep reverting without discussion is a term of edit war. Even you elaborate your edit on your edit summary will be better. Lemonaka (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lemonaka. Sorry for disturbing you in your diffrent discussion but it was important for me. Can you help me on writing in this Wiki? Quotes is most mis spelled words by me for lifetime and I write this perticular thing the most. Anyways this is not the main issue, Please see my concern of asking you right below and help me if you feel free. Thank you. 2409:4081:AE15:28D7:0:0:CC0A:CE09 22:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2409:4081:AE15:28D7:0:0:CC0A:CE09What can our sysops do for you? Lemonaka (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can a blocked user in multiple Wikimedia accounts write in Wikiquote?


[Inform before deleting] Hello readers/users. I am in need of information about writing in Wikiquote while being myself a blocked allmost everywhere since I statred writing in other projects of Wikimedia.I am a writer who had started writing there with no technology knowledge and artificial modern writing tools using a computer language. Kindly help me know if I can and guide me further if I am eligible to write here. I can write anything but delete nothing. Please keep this in my case while performing any act be it helping or barring me. Thank you."Words are the only weapon which are made for every pericipant's win in a war,unlike others where one's defeat derermines another's win."2409:4081:AE15:28D7:0:0:CC0A:CE09 21:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:4081:AE15:28D7:0:0:CC0A:CE09 If you are not locked or blocked before, you can. If you are locked, go away, we are not a place for asylum Lemonaka (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A search box for AN archive


Hi, I purpose adding a search box for AN archive, this will be much more convenient for searching historical discussions about this project. Lemonaka (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is nothing at all on the village pump? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today I see a search box the Village pump. Magic? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech Done, but something looked weird Lemonaka (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI reviving old discussion on the village pump


FYI: Wikiquote:Village pump#Connecting new pages to wikidata? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Pmlineditor (talk · contributions)

For whom has been inactive on this project for nearly two years, we may need to notice them about possibly desysop process. Their last action on this project was [1] On Nov 14, 2021. Lemonaka (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion request


Dear Admins, The page Megamind: The Button of Doom and its talk page was being vandalised by User:2603:6000:B800:EB4:A81D:CF96:6E8A:300B. The Vandalism has been rolled back but the edit summary contains some abusive words. Kindly rev delete the versions. Aslo requesting a block for this. 511KeV (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for


Dear admins, The Ip User: is involved in vandalising David Louis Walker page. As such I am requesting a block for the IP. 511KeV (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 05:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alert of ongoing xwiki spam including Wikiquote (Pabitra Banerjee)


Dear admins, the page, Pabitra Banerjee has some (unreferenced) quotes, may not fit to the speedy deletion criteria, but I would like to alert that this is a xwiki spam target, please see the logs at w:simple:Pabitra Banerjee, m:Pabitra Banerjee, s:Pabitra Banerjee, and n:Pabitra Banerjee. The author's activities can be seen at Special:CentralAuth/Barshaban, and a list of related accounts can be found at w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Pabitra_Banerjee_accounts. I think our admins should decide what to do with the author. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as vanity, unsourced biography. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to take a look at Special:Contributions/RoHitMan45, new account with similar interest. MathXplore (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good guess. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget Clean Delete Reasons misfunction


For unknown reason, Clean Delete Reasons, MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons.js is not functioning. Could some Interface Adiministrators glance on that? Lemonaka (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about now? —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, still can't work Lemonaka (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf Sorry, I forgot to clear my cache, now it can work well. Lemonaka (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Let me know how else I can help. I'm thankful for you this year, my citrusy friend. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to help when there's a need. Let us say to the people not 'How much have you got? ' but 'How best can we serve you?' Lemonaka (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ask not what your wiki can do for you, ask what you can do for your wiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This gadget hasn't worked for me in months. I tried asking for help on it but never got anywhere. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it may work. Lemonaka (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if it's not functioning. Sorry that I missed the earlier request. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like it is working now - thank you so much! It's been a source of frustration for a while until I finally decided to ignore it. Much better now. ~ UDScott (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block request for ColonelRogers


The contributions make clear ColonelRogers is NOTHERE to improve Wikiquote by adding notable/quotable quotes. The long-winded, heavily bolded POV-pushing also strongly resembles the work of LTA sock-farmer aka Libraryclerk0191, GaneshaSis, WeNotMeC020, GreenMeansGo, WillSeymourIII, AlphaBravo2022, JulianVerdadCastro, and etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange  Y Blocked, obviously sockpuppetry. Lemonaka (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to request a SRCU for this case? Is there any obvious sleepers? Lemonaka (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your second question: I don't know of any. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
???@HouseOfChange Are you sure GreenMeansGo is a sockpuppet? Lemonaka (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree that a review of this user is warranted - and no doubt a review of all of the recent contributions is needed as well (especially ones that seem to be from biased or dubious sources). ~ UDScott (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka: Oops, my apologies to GreenMeansGo!!! I was collecting familiar names from histories of LibraryClerk-targeted pages and mistakenly added GMG. Striking that name from my original comment. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any recent account besides this one? All accounts being list are stale. Lemonaka (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another similar recently-active is CarmenEsparzaAmoux (contributions) whose first edit was to create the article California genocide. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely per editing pattern. Lemonaka (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka: I misunderstood your question, thought you (per UDScott above) were asking about recent heavily POV-pushing accounts. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange I definitely can request a check, but likely it will be refused by steward. Lemonaka (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for taking care of this. I also think that CarmenEsparzaAmoux is a different person from the LibraryClerk0191 sockmaster. Antandrus (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing World of Gumball


Please protect The Amazing World of Gumball: Edit war. --Leonidlednev (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done, protected for a year. Saroj (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonidlednev@Saroj Block extended to /64, more edits reverted. Lemonaka (talk) 07:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I "Proxy editing"?


One of the more recent admins who joined this project has warned me on my UTP that I am "Proxy editing". They claim that an edit I made is an "obvious sign of your proxy editing for a banned user". I take this warning very seriously since I believe all my previous 6 indef-blocks on other wikimedia-wikis have been inflicted by similarly good-faithed but misinformed admins. I like this place and do not want to be blocked here, but not at the cost of having to say "yes sir" every time someone make egregious complaints about my volunteer performance.

Here is my stance on this issue:

  1. When it comes to content contributions I believe I have a right to undo an erroneous edit even if the person who made the edit is a functionary.
  2. I also believe that edits made by banned/blocked/globally locked/whathave-you users should not automatically be removed from content, unless there is consensus to remove made by the ENWQ community.
  3. If all edits made by "bad" users were removed tomorrow, this wiki will most likely shrink to less than a half its size today, and many pages will completely disappear from public view, I think?
  4. I have been participating semi-actively trying to help build a page on a controversial issue created a little after October 7, 2023. There have been accusations made on the Talkpage that this article is not neutral point-of-view (what's new?), but to this day few users have jumped to help make this page NPOV. As always, it is much easier to criticize and remove content added by others than to add quotes that create more equilibrium.

I have posted my objection to being cast as a meat/sockpuppet on Talk:2023 Israel-Hamas war#Am I "Proxy editing"?, but ask all ENWQ-admins to step back and watch patiently and let regular users have their say first instead of jumping right in. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a comment on the other page - I know you asked for us to wait, but I believe you may be correct that the edits in question seem suspect (and the accusation of being a proxy seems unwarranted). I merely asked for some explanation by the other party. ~ UDScott (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott: After @Lemonaka: blocked the obvious LibraryClerk sockpuppet ColonelRogers, it was clear somebody should do a cleanup of the many pov-pushing edits that had been made by ColonelRogers. Therefore, on Nov 25, Lemonaka undid edits to multiple articles that had been illegitimately made by a banned user, including to War crimes, Crimes against humanity, Benjamin Netanyahu, etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the edit in question one of those removals? First, if this is the case, it would have been helpful to tag it as such. Second, if the quote is legitimate, relevant to the page's topic, and from a reputable source, why remove it? I'm not accusing Lemonaka of bad behavior (I too find that this user is a good contributor) - I just wonder if the removal of the quote should be reconsidered. ~ UDScott (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at page histories, this kerfluffle arises from Ottawahitech's edit, and POINT-y edit summary "Undo revision 3411415 by Lemonaka (talk) this is not a cleanup -- this pure censorship." More history, the "proxy editing comment was made at 23:57 and withdrawn 20 minutes later at 01:17. There was no name-calling, no "meat/sockpuppet", etc. Less drama please, everybody here is a volunteer, and nobody is going to pick up pitchforks or torches to march against Lemonaka, who is a very constructive editor and admin. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this kerfluffle observation, @HouseOfChange:
  • I did not intend to make a POINT-y edit summary, but yes I can be blunt sometime.
  • re: "More history, the "proxy editing comment was made at 23:57"
    • Yes, this comment was made by User: Lemonaka on my Usertalkpage at 23:57, 4 December 2023. This is what it said:
      • "Special:Diff/3411846, this is obvious sign of your proxy editing for a banned user. There's nothing about censorship, so I'm leaving this warn to you. "
Shall I continue?
Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ottawahitech: On the contrary, I wish you would stop hounding Lemonaka in multiple forums, of which this is only the most recent. On November 22, you started a criticism of Lemonaka at the long-defunct Wikiquote:Admin accountability poll. On December 3, you started Talk:Benjamin_Netanyahu#Misuse_of_the_rollback_button_by_an_admin?, asserting that "original edits which were rolled back by our admin were done prior to the block of user Colonel Rogers, so could not have been done in defiance of their block." On the contrary, ColonelRogers was clearly a sock from the LibraryClerk sockfarm, so every single ColonelRogers edit was by a blocked/banned editor. Your defense and re-instating ColonelRogers edits at Benjamin Netanyahu on December 3 was probably an added reason for Lemonaka to see your defending and re-instating ColonelRogers edits at 2023_Israel-Hamas_war on December 4 as proxy editing. On December 6, you started Talk:2023 Israel-Hamas war#Am I "Proxy editing"? in addition to this thread right here. Lemonaka has withdrawn the mistaken "proxy editing" comment. But rather than similarly apologize for your uncivil edit summary and its failure to AGF ("this is not a cleanup -- this pure censorship"), you complacently tell us that "I can be blunt sometimes." So please stop, I'm bored. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seemed the place for discusssion is here, I'm copying my previous answer here.
  • “@UDScott
    Sorry for being late, I was checking the edits from these puppets and I found a quote they added to the content page so I decided to remove it. I misjudged it as a POV-pushing. Regarding this case, I regret that it was a wrong judgment on my part, and I admit that this is my fault. After they submitted this question today, I also asked Koavf, Antandrus and Ferien for advice.
    I have to admit that losing enough judgment and acting hastily is indeed my problem. But I've been a little stressed recently because this user kept mentioning me, from Wikiquote:Admin_accountability_poll, to the recent accusation of problematic rollbacks, to today's situation. I'm trying my best to explain my actions to them, but it seems a little bit difficult. I'm not censoring any quotes as they accused.
    I have never thought of myself as a ruling class, instead I always thought of myself as a helper. In previous conversations, I have also mentioned how I should better serve rather than manage. I could withdraw my warning and apologize, none of that would be a problem, my only question would still be, "how can I do better?"
    I'm quite sorry, but I really don't know what's more I should explain. ” — 8 December 2023 (UTC)

-Lemonaka 12:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka: It is fine to treat this as a learning experience. Recall that, despite any errors you made, you never said anything to another editor as inaccurate and offensive as "this is not a cleanup -- this pure censorship." People in this discussion (other than Ottawahitech) did not pile onto you for one mistaken comment but instead defended you as a good contributor. Likewise, when Ottawahitech accused you in Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu of abusing rollback, his undo of your rollback was quickly undone by @Philip Cross:, and you even got a nice compliment from @Koavf: as "a long-term user like Lemonaka who is a trusted member of the community." There is no consensus here that you deserve rebuke or reproach, if anything-- as the seasick Frenchman said when asked if he had dined--"Au contraire". HouseOfChange (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange Thanks a lot for your understanding and support. -Lemonaka 15:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Vasil Kacarov


Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Vasil Kacarov The edits from these two IP can be linked to Админ.МК (talk · contributions), this is obvious sockpuppetry, but as an involved sysop, I cannot directly block them. So I'm leaving this topic here. -Lemonaka 07:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect Mellissa221 (talk · contributions) is a sock per edits on this project, especially on Vasil Kacarov. But this is not something   looks like a duck to me. -Lemonaka 08:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with everything here. Админ.МК (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott @Ferien @GreenMeansGo Is it wise to request a check upon this case? -Lemonaka 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request


Would someone please be so kind to delete my vandalised user page? Thanks in advance. Wutsje (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wutsje Done -Lemonaka 12:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Wutsje (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prod cleanup


There are too many laggings for PROD deletion, some of them are nominated by me so I cannot delete them, can any other sysops come to help? -Lemonaka 12:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting protection


I am requesting protection for both Toy Story 2 and The Powerpuff Girls Movie; both articles have been edited by an IP address going against copyright and making both full-on transcriptions of the entire films. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done - I made the protection for Toy Story 2 longer since it has a history of being vandalized. ~ UDScott (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can admins take a look at issues here around Israel-Hamas War?


In addition to 2023 Israel-Hamas war, we now have articles about War crimes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, 2023 Gaza humanitarian crisis, and event Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Just a couple of sample "quotes" from War crimes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war:

  • What set the tone was the early rhetoric from the Biden administration that gave unconditional support for what turned out to be a genocidal war. Blinken can try to soften his rhetoric and apply pressure, but in the end, it won’t bring back the dead in Gaza.

Ibrahim Abusharif, quoted in "US isn’t doing enough to prevent ‘genocidal’ war on Gaza: Analyst" (30 November, 2023), Al Jazeera

  • A war crimes complaint has been filed against President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump adviser Jared Kushner in the International Criminal Court (ICC).... The complaint, filed by Middlesex University law professor William Schabas on June 30 on behalf of four Palestinians who live in the West Bank, states “there is credible evidence” that Trump, Netanyahu and Kushner “are complicit in acts that may amount to war crimes relating to the transfer of populations into occupied territory and the annexation of the sovereign territory of the State of Palestine.” Under article 15 of the ICC’s Rome Statute, any individual, group or organization can bring a complaint to the Office of the Prosecutor. ... Schabas’ complaint comes on the heels of unusual moves last month from the Trump administration, which declared a “national emergency” in June in an effort to shield U.S. and Israeli officials from ICC accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Marjorie Cohn in Trump Is Trying to Hide US & Israeli War Crimes by Attacking the International Criminal Court, TruthOut, (8 July 2020)

I think these "forks" need to be pared back with actual quotable quotes either in the war article or the War crimes article. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely POV and quotability concerns here, but at the very least they should be merged into one entry. Thoughts from others? —Justin (koavf)TCM 12:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also ping to this discussion @CarmenEsparzaAmoux:, creator of War crimes in the 2023 Israel-Hamas war and 2023 Gaza humanitarian crisis, and @Ottawahitech:, creator of Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion. Just for reference, WQ has articles named War crimes and Humanitarian crisis. They say that en-wiki is NOTNEWS but even more so, WQ is ill-suited to hosting passionate long-form editorializing about current events. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: with all due respect not everyone thrives on "talking". User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux is a content contributor. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech Many a prolific "content contributor" has come here in the past to misuse WikiQuote as a billboard to push one side of a personal agenda; a consistent pattern of such "unpaid labor" suggests they are NOTHERE to improve WikiQuote. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WRT your edit summary "un-criticizable Mother Teresa"...You may need to look more into Mother Teresa... GMGtalk 17:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech A hint to you, do you believe Risto hot sir (talk · contributions) is a content contributor on this project, then what about PlanespotterA320 (talk · contributions) globally? They are both prolific content contributors, but terribly in violation of basic wiki rules. -Lemonaka 17:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is disrespect or dishonor content contributors, however, only that someone is a contributor does not make sense. -Lemonaka 17:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page has already been heavily hijacked by Pro-Hamas POV-pushing, the neutrality is seriously tested on this case. While I'm really tired and depressed about politics due to previous drama. TLDR, the one who tried to do some POV-pushings is very clever, any quotes they add may seemed to obey all the rules, but by quoting out of the context, distorting original meaning, and some tricky ways, the article is totally a Hamas supporter fanpov. -Lemonaka 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka Yes, and ... it is a simple exercise of SEO (search engine optimization) to create multiple pages promoting similar content. But per Help:Starting a new page "For theme articles, it is especially important to first check for existing articles that might reasonably contain the quotes you wish to add. If a topic builds up enough quotes to merit its own article, it can always be "spun off" later." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Others should feel free to add to this list of articles that should become re-directs rather than a fork from 2023 Israel-Hamas war. Aelny actual notable/quotable quotes can be merged there or else into a theme like War crimes, Humanitarian crises, or For no reason except that they are evil, Israel, the US, and Joe Biden personally are killing babies. (The last of these "theme articles" doesn;t yet exist, but maybe if it is "spun off" then people will stop larding other articles with those quotes.) HouseOfChange (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion a lot of the quotes in those articles fail to meet quotability WQ:Q and they need a major clean up. They have authors that are barely notable, quotes which aren't particularly witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, or poignant and aren't independently well known. Robin Loup (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robin Loup @GreenMeansGo@Koavf@UDScott and @Ottawahitech
I proposed to temporarily move these articles to draft namespace, adding _NOINDEX_ to them to prevent these promotions being scattered on search engines. And move them back to main namespace after clean-up for POV-pushing. -Lemonaka 02:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also pinging @Antandrus @Saroj and @HouseOfChange -Lemonaka 02:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second. Thanks, L. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Lemonaka Draftspace and noindex sound like a great solution. I would never have thought of that--thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your plan to move articles to draft and add NOINDEX effectively controls biased content while allowing cleanup. Good strategy! Saroj (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done, please review my action, draft namespace are naturally NOINDEX. -Lemonaka 03:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saroj@Koavf@HouseOfChange -Lemonaka 03:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding inappropriate usernames (policy?)


I see we have a policy(?): Wikiquote:Username policy and have a couple of questions:

  1. Is this an official policy of the English Wikiquote
  2. Where can I report an "inappropriate username"?

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes, it says that at the top.
  2. Here is a good place.
Justin (koavf)TCM 16:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Hello, this gadget is no longer working for this project. It can be suppressed by . But it will need some tests before introducing. -Lemonaka 17:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I did wrong but VfD not working tonight for me


I went through the recommended steps to nominate a page for deletion. The page is 2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage, the discussion I started about it is here. But in the main Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion page, it shows up at the bottom of another deletion request. I tried a few fixes but ... nope. If somebody not-me can fix this I'd be grateful if you would. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 11:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the discussion page. Saroj (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Saroj, for fixing this and to Justin for noticing that it was fixed! HouseOfChange (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please move User:Navitomesi to User talk:Navitomesi without redirect


A warning message was posted on userspace, but this has to be posted on the user talk page. Please move the userpage to user talk space without redirect. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Saroj (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Block request


Please block User:, see their edits. Thank you. Wutsje (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wutsje  Y Done -Lemonaka 05:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Fake Wikipedia": quotes with (un-fact-checked) assertions of fact


Please consider this quote, recently added to 3 articles:

  • In the year of the pandemic, 2020, the number of people receiving cancer treatments was 9 per cent higher than the blue trend line. In 2021 it was 95 per cent higher and in 2022 106 per cent higher than expected. “We have a doubling of cancer cases,” Beck said. This raises the question: Could the covid injections be the cause? Because there was hardly any increase in cancer in 2020, the pandemic can’t be the cause. There could be another reason that explains the sudden increase in cancer cases, we can’t rule that out, Beck said. But “the temporal pattern speaks in favour of vaccination as the trigger for cancer cases, because the increase begins in the year of vaccinations.”

This is a kind of "quote" we get repeatedly--a one-sided argument aimed to convince readers that the source is reporting some undisputed fact. Because this problem arises so often here, do we have some policy or guideline to help with pushing back against these "fake Wikipedia" quotes? I'm not talking about notable/quotable claims (e.g. "War is hell") but one-sided cherry-picked argumentations like this. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Talking about fake Wikipedia quotes, the more serious situation is regarding works of animations, films and something like that. For example, Spongebob pages get vandalized everyday, how many hoaxes have been added? Nobody knows. -Lemonaka 07:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka Vandalism and hoaxes are serious, but I hope for this section to discuss something different: people hijacking WQ articles by inserting long arguments that favor their side of a disputed question. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft namespace


Hi, our project doesn't have a draft namespace. Per discussion on #Can admins take a look at issues here around Israel-Hamas War?, we'd better request on Phab. -Lemonaka 10:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to have a draft namespace, then we may need a deletion policy for drafts just like enwiki. What would you think about this? MathXplore (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A draft stay in draft namespace for six months without any edits can be deleted as prod process. Nothing more, since draft cannot be indexed. -Lemonaka 02:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with that. One more question, when moving mainspace articles to draft space, should we leave a redirect? (should we ask admins to delete such redirects?) MathXplore (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, but these are only proposals, not policy now. -Lemonaka 00:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block request


I am requesting that one or more of the admins block; this IP address has consistently vandalized the Lilo & Stitch page by adding random unrelated animal species. I suggest the block be made up to a year, because this animal species vandalism has also been done by two other IP addresses, especially in regards to one specific article. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done. -Lemonaka 15:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]



This user inserted the same fake quotes to many articles.

The user also created many new articles.

It needs to be checked if the articles that the user created are hoaxes/vandalism or not.

I have quickly checked a few, and it seemed legitimate, but some had no wikipedia article. But the user created many articles. See also Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Umuganwa12 batch 22021228 (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partially done, more action will be made on meta if needed. -Lemonaka 01:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with hopping IP


I reverted a quote on War sourced to UNZ from an IP with a short edit history. But close variants of this IP have been making problematic edits too:

Any good way to deal with this? HouseOfChange (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Done. -Lemonaka 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Forstyrrelse av Wikipedla


Would you please block this vandal (whose name means "Disturbing Wikipedia" in Norwegian) permanently? Thank you. Asav (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Forstyrrelse av Wikipedla: User account "Forstyrrelse av Wikipedla" is not registered on this wiki. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was meant for the Norwegian edition. Anyhoo, the user has been blocked globally. Asav (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot stuck


Hello, MAbot stuck on this page since July 1, any idea? -Lemonaka 01:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you about the Mental Health Resource Center and inviting any comments you may have


Hello Wikiquote folks! I work in the Community Resilience and Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Mental Health Resource Center is a group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community.

The Mental Health Resource Center launched in August 2023. The goal is to review the comments and suggestions to improve the Mental Health Resource Center each quarter. As there have not been many comments yet, I’d like to invite you to provide comments and resource suggestions as you are able to do so. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Thank you! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LibraryClerk is back again, could somebody please block the IP being used.


Pretty obvious same person HouseOfChange (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseOfChange Done, /32, due to another one (Project) also using that range. -Lemonaka 01:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South Park pages; high risk


More than half the seasons of South Park have been vandalized back and forth, whether it be adding in scenes with characters that are not from South Park, replacing characters in dialogue and randomly adding in dialogue and characters where they don't belong, randomly changing the dialogue, and downright plagiarism. This may not seem like a problem, as I have been reverting these edits, but it goes to show that these articles, like the SpongeBob ones above, are subject to LTA vandalism-- and usually by the same person, as documented [here. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem because while vandalism is going to happen sometimes in an open wiki, your time is valuable and the less the time is spent with you undoing this noise, the better. I'll just protect all of those pages for a bit. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Influx of poorly-written TV series articles


All of these sourced articles are some of the most poorly-written excuses of "articles" I have ever seen on this site. There's no denying that they aren't certainly notable; but my major concern is how badly these articles look. Specifically, they're filled with terrible formatting, grammar issues(?), non-quote material, and in case of The Garfield Show, quotes that clearly were not part of the episode. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is just the state of a lot of this site and it is a product of some users who are obsessive about some cartoon and not interested in quality control or following our guidelines. The problem is widespread or systemic, so it would really require a concerted effort to clean up a lot of the borderline no-value pop culture content on here. :/ I'm open to discussing how we can fix this other than just deleting dozens of pages and starting over. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can copy the method used for cleaning up pages of LibraryClerk sockfarm: Somebody (I think it was Antandrus) created a list of problem articles on this page, then others went through and pared them down to quotable quotes, putting an asterisk on each article name here on AN so others could see what had been "done." Somebody else, I think it was BD2412, suggested moving deleted quotes and images to article talk pages, so that others could sift through them for gems that belonged in the article. You can see some of that process here: Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/037 What do others think? HouseOfChange (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a TV show is "certainly notable" doesn't mean we have to have a page for it. We can delete all of these. There are much higher-level matters we should be working on. BD2412 T 17:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see this stuff all the time when I look at recent changes, and usually just roll my eyes and keep scrolling. Does this stuff have value? Maybe. Is any of it quotable? How do you tell? (Serious question. I don't have a test.) But I have so little interest in popular culture of this kind that I just don't bother with it. But in general, yes, it does look like an area needing cleanup - for someone who can see if there are any babies in an ocean of bathwater. Antandrus (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Antandrus. What if instead of spending a lot of time on trivial shows we instead had a section for 80s kids shows, 90s kids shows, etc. Then for each show, a few short catchphrases that their fans would remember. Some shows, like Mister Rogers Neighborhood, left meaningful memories, and its successor Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood has also inspired some folks to quote bits from it. What if we set a cutoff, so that any notable show with three memorable quotable quotes gets an article, but below that put their catchphrases into a group article? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can one or more of the admins protect this article? It has been vandalized for three years straight (as documented on the talk page) and any attempts to clean up the article always results in it being reverted back to vandal edits. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Saroj (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of good popular culture theme-articles, e.g. Barbie (film) where quotes from well-written dialog are notable and quotable. Not sure where the divide is between Barbie and SpongeBob but being notable enough to have an en-wiki article is not a sure guarantee that Wikiquote needs a long article.

Fansites (e.g. host information sharing on pop-culture themes. Maybe we should try a friendly outreach to those posting such content here, re-directing them urging the editors to re-direct their efforts to an appropriate fansite if possible. Doing gentle triage on Category:American children's animated fantasy TV shows might be a good place to start. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Update: Clarifying my confusing wording HouseOfChange (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the redirect to pages since it's a commercial site replete with controversy. I do agree in that notability is not guarantee to be in Wikiquote, the artfulness factor should be in consideration. Wikiquote:Quotability already cover what should and what should not be in Wikiquote, so it's a matter or enforcing the policy. Maybe we could amend the policy to encompass these popular culture theme-articles. Robin Loup (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my unclear wording. I meant to re-direct the PEOPLE not the articles. Looking at the Spongebob.Fandom wiki, I see incredible details about individual episodes and about memes; apparently "meme" is their version of a notable quote. But as Robin Loup says, for us quotability requires artfulness, and WQ isn't a free web-host for the world's nostalgia. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that there are many "popular culture theme-articles" which are very problematic here, especially those in such categories as "American children's animated fantasy TV shows" — but I do not agree with the measure of eliminating them wholesale, merely because I myself (or most other adults) do not generally find them interesting or notable enough to quote, or spend much time editing, beyond removing obvious or overt vandalism or trolling. I recognize that they are likely to remain extremely problematic in various ways for various reasons, but deletion of whole articles, or whole categories of articles for such reasons alone does not seem to me an appropriate response. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 00:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could perhaps make it a policy to semi-protect most such pages, in such categories — that would be a slightly problematic measure also — but might eliminate most of the vandalism. ~ ♌︎Kalki ⚓︎ 00:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that makes sense. Robin Loup (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having previously taken the (unpopular) position that registration should be required to edit any articles, I can support requiring it for broad ranges of problem-prone topics. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(This is not really an administrative issue. Village Pump might be a better venue.) I have long ago objected to these fan culture articles, particularly those of primarily childish interest, but I lost interest in trying to mitigate them because few users were interested in the effort. The fanaticism of fans is notorious. If the community would like to gently, gradually wean their adherents away from treating Wikiquote like Fandom, et al. then I will support the effort. It may be challenging to draw the line between undue enthusiasm for SpongeBob and appropriate fascination with Shakespear — prepare for contention. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser reintroduction


As more and more active registered users appeared on this project, I believed it's the time for Checkuser reintroduction. Checkusers are supposed to be highly trust by local community, have signed NDA and got at least 25 support votes from registered users. Is there anyone who is interested in that? -Lemonaka 03:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal and am willing to serve. I am a CU on species. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my early days, about 11 years ago, collecting those 25 votes was a main problem. There was a solid team of administrators handling the affairs to every bodies satisfaction or to most, and I guess people didn't care for more. From what I remember, that was also the time that the last rights of the last Checkuser was revoked. If I am not mistaken there was the need to organize regular re-election.
Now afterwards from 2013 tot 2017 I have been privileged to serve as one of the administrators without any checkuser capabilities. The usual vandalism and trolling were recognized by their patterns of behavior. The trolling often began with normal behavior, and in a day or week or so trolling began, and we looked back at previous edits. With some more important sock puppeteers we relied on Checkuser results made on Wikipedia-EN. Just my 2 cents. -- Mdd (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New admin's first block


Seeing ongoing vandalism from an IP at Recent changes, I blocked

Now a very similar IP started vandalizing. I will whackamole him too, but can wise heads give any advice or URL for general guidance? HouseOfChange (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germane links: mw:Help:Range_blocks and w:en:User:TonyBallioni/Just block the /64ad n —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super helpful, thanks, I will use that in future. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hasan Milad (Alert of ongoing xwiki spam)


This entry seems to be a xwiki spam target, please see deletion logs at w:Al Hasan Milad and w:simple:Al Hasan Milad. Please also note that the author seems to be evading previous global locks of Special:CentralAuth/Enwiki23 (w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enwiki23). MathXplore (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I have deleted the article whose topic seems to be not notable as well. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this account is possibly an alternative for (Special:Contributions/Ramkripalyadavgeo, recently blocked). Both of them have been making pages with similar titles for English projects including here. They are also making uploads to Commons with similar titles, and the same subject (please compare commons:Special:Log/Sofig57 and commons:Special:Log/Ramkripalyadavgeo). MathXplore (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done blocked per w:en:WP:DUCK. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note user is reported at m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Sofig57Justin (koavf)TCM 20:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the deletion process for WQ admins?


Wikipedia has clear instructions at w:AFD/AI but where are Wikiquote's? From WQ:VfD "If consensus is for deletion, the sysop should follow the deletion process to delete the article." Unfortunately, "deletion process" is a redlink. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ostensibly, proposed deletions are open c. two weeks and closed by an admin and then deleted with consensus and obvious noise is just deleted as spam, etc. In practice, many deletion discussions stay open waaaaay too long, so if you see one open, feel free to close it using your best judgement. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed some PRODs, but for VfD I can't find what templates to add at the top, the bottom, etc. Barbecue Brawl has been up since Jan. 15 and consensus is clear, so I'd like to close it. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little busy with some real-world stuff in this very moment, but the easiest way to do it is to reverse engineer another closed one. i.e. just go to edit one that is already closed and see if you can figure out how to do it based on that. Sorry that it's such a poor answer--I'm trying to help, but preoccupied. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I should have done that originally. I have now closed the discussion, deleted the article (which had no talk page), and removed a redlink to it from a list article. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review recent IP blocks


I appreciate the work of our admins, but I found several questionable IP blocks in the recent logs so I will list them for reviews.

MathXplore (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done 99.etc was on one-week prior to me doing anything and now 81.etc is now 90 days. 174.etc/16 is now on 30 days as well. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please block this user and this IP address


Please block these two; they are sockpuppets of Nate Speed (Spidgewood)/SoulEaterFan/Evilasio Da Paz. I reported them on the vandalism in progress section, but they have not been blocked, in spite of the constant vandalism and harassment they do. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done Let me know what else is needed. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this IP address should be blocked for restoring the vandalism edit associated with Evilasio. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done Rangeblock, one week. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's at it again, under a different IP. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, 2 weeks (had previous 1 week block for harassment). HouseOfChange (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt username policy


Please explain following paragraph ...

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

If any one in wikiquote have religious username , what's the punishment for the user ?

Recently I discussed the same subject in other Wikies Premaledu (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The punishment is in the subsequent section: Wikiquote:Username_policy#Dealing_with_problem_usernamesJustin (koavf)TCM 16:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanq Admin Premaledu (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All admins - Ignore this request. They have gone on various wiki's attempting the same thing. Glock has been requested. PotsdamLamb (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Robotquote1 (Possible username issues)


According to Wikiquote:Username_policy#Inappropriate_usernames, usernames that imply bot accounts are not allowed. I would like to know if this is an acceptable username for our community. MathXplore (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, it does seem to violate the policy, but I don't know that anyone would be confused. Anyone else have a take? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, @MathXplore The username in violation of username policy should be ****bot or ******robot, this is robot***** -Lemonaka 04:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard that prefixes are OK. Thank you for the information. MathXplore (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot stuck


Hello, MABot (talk · contributions) has been stuck for a very long while. I've archived some of discussions on this page. Please notice the manager of the bot if possible. -Lemonaka 09:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoAurelio: Can you fix this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admin input sought on Philip Cross editing George Galloway


@Philip Cross: is a valued and prolific contributor to Wikiquote, and as he points out in an edit summary, en-wiki's restriction that he should stay away from post-1978 British Politics doesn't apply to him in Wikiquote.[2] Per WP:BLPCOI, however, PC should not edit George Galloway (an extremely minor British political figure, now remembered mostly for his 2018 attacks on Philip Cross, accusing him of misusing Wikipedia with wide-ranging content manipulation "remorselessly targeted at people who oppose the Iraq war, who've opposed the subsequent intervention wars … in Libya and Syria, and people who criticise Israel.")[3][4] I would welcome input from more experienced admins in the discussion at Talk:George_Galloway. Another who has publicly attacked Philip Cross is Craig Murray: PC should not be editing that bio either. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really OK with WQ, to court potential public embarrassment for the wiki project? Because after taking a victory lap about the lack of response here, @Philip Cross: is back making multiple edits to George Galloway. Quoting w:BLP "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki –...should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." HouseOfChange (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Possibly unauthorized VFD tag removals (Special:Contributions/Maryam_AlAkini)


I found that this user has been removing VFD tags for pages that they made by themselves. I suggest our admins take a look at what they are doing. MathXplore (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the 3 VfD tags and left a polite informative message for the editor. This new editor was familiar with the PROD process, and understandably assumed that the VfD tag could also be removed.

HouseOfChange (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A big fat (related) mess


A weird pattern emerges, including edits at Commons, en-wiki, and fr-wiki promoting Hakawi News (now at VfD here).

  1. Hakawi News, a WordPress site at, had an article in fr-wiki but it was deleted/userfied to the userspace of Ahmed_brens, see on Feb. 24.
  2. The same username Ahmed_brens created an en-wiki article for Hakawi News on February 24; it is now at AFD there.
  3. At Commons, Maryam_AlAkini has uploaded a bunch of photos asserting that they show Hakawi News's owner with his 2023 Academy Award, which he won on April 22, 2023. Spoiler alert, those aren't Oscar statuettes, the 2023 Oscars were not in April, and nobody named Abdel or Nasser won an Oscar in 2023. This is the same person described variously at fr-wiki and en-wiki as the owner or the editor of Hakawi News, his photo is on the Hakawi website, along with claims that he also won many honors including a French Legion of Honor but doesn't mention his 2023 Academy Award.
  4. At Commons, after I nominated the photo above for deletion as a hoax, a third French-speaking user (who like Maryam_AlAkini claims to be affiliated with Wikimedia) removed the AfD tag from the image file without commenting on its deletion discussion, leaving this edit summary "Après vérification des sources, il n'est pas éligible à la suppression. Sahih Abdel Nasser, connu sous le nom de Muhammad, et dans plusieurs sources, cela est mentionné. S'il vous plaît, arrêtez de falsifier les articles, sinon je vous bannirai du ticket bénévole. Salutations de Wikipédia équipe" {tr: "After verifying the sources, it is not eligible for deletion. Sahih Abdel Nasser, known as Muhammad, and in several sources this is mentioned. Please stop tampering with articles or I will ban you from the volunteer ticket. Greetings from Wikipedia team.")

I am not sure if this is a hoax, a joke, PROMO gone awry, or just a big fat mess. Could more widely experienced sysops take a look? HouseOfChange (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Maryam_AlAkini's userpage duplicates the Wikimedia userpage of User:PDas (WMF), who like most WMF employees includes WMF as part of his username. The Wikimedia userpage, by including PDas's category "Wikimedia employee", adds her username to , where again it is very unusual in having no WMF at the end (and using a gmail address rather than a WMF address.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This mess has now been largely taken care of by admins at Commons after I created [[an AN request there. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request


Hi! I am not sure where the correct place to put this is (there doesn't seem to be a template?), so I am leaving it here: would someone with the requisite permissions please change "CC-BY-SA 4.0 License" to "CC BY-SA 4.0 License" at MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning? Per the CC style guide, there should not be dashes after the "CC" descriptor. HouseBlaster (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 00:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This entry was originally made in the main space, but it was moved to the module space. I don't think there is a need to do so. I request our admins to move this back to the original position with suppress-redirect. MathXplore (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done super weird. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also reported to global lock, as he's blocked on many wikis due to shenanigans, hi-jinks, and derring-do. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser reqeust


Hello, I'm requesting a checkuser for following list of users, since their editing pattern has matched previous LTA on this project.
For group one, they are

  1. NASB2fan2024 (talk · contributions)
  2. NASBMaster2022 (talk · contributions)
  3. Are You Smarter than a Wallaby (talk · contributions)

For creating strange RFA nomination and similar editing patterns as group one, I'd like to add the following group for checking.
Group two are

  1. Robotquote1 (talk · contributions)
  2. Robotquote2 (talk · contributions)
  3. Robotquote3 (talk · contributions)
  4. Robotquote4 (talk · contributions)

-Lemonaka 12:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UDScott @BD2412 and @Koavf, if possible, I will request a check for them. -Lemonaka 10:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I recall, there are no checkusers on this project, and checkuser requests go to Meta:Requests for CheckUser information. I don't think we actually need them in these cases. They are pretty obvious, and don't pass the duck test. BD2412 T 14:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't have local CUs, this will have to go to m:. I support you posting there and I also support just blocked all indefinitely per w:en:WP:DUCK. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will just block them. Since group one is so obvious per editing pattern, and group two is also a kind of illegitimate use of multiple accounts. -Lemonaka 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



User:HouseOfChange is making an accusation of COI against me at the end of Wikiquote:Village pump#Paid editing as he is particularly preoccupied by my editing of the George Galloway article. It might be worthwhile for (other) administrators to look at the edits of HoC of the Galloway article. On the Galloway talk page I point to two edits by HoC from last February which I do not consider to have been made in good faith. In fact, two key passages were deleted by this user, including the entirety of Galloway's speech to Saddam Hussein in 1994; in the UK, this is still the best known incident in Galloway's career. In an earlier A/N thread, HoC does make a case for a COI claim to be made against me (derived from Wikipedia in 2018), but no other administrator made a comment. It does appear this user/administrator is targeting me beyond anything which might be considered reasonable. Philip Cross (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway is on my watchlist. I edited it once today (April 1) and before that my most recent edit was on March 6. This hardly seems like "targeting" or "preoccupation." I stand by my opinion that George Galloway's successful campaign to have Philip Cross blocked from editing en-wiki constitutes a "significant controversy or dispute" to quote w:WP:BLPCOI.
But I would welcome the opinion of more people to the current dispute at the article. Philip Cross has removed, twice, two of the very few somewhat-positive quotes about George Galloway. I added these on March 3, PC removed them on April 1 saying "first Deborah Ross quote unremarkable & thus non-notable, second quote now out of date (and I've no interest in quoting DR's updated opinion which is also unremarkable, non-notable & not especially funny):". I restored them on April 1 saying "undo removal of some of the very few quotes about Galloway that provided balance to the catalog already provided here of negativity", and PC undid my edit saying "Undo revision 3491803 by HouseOfChange (talk) "found good in Saddam" is not a commendation for the person who admired his "indefatigability"; the best known negative comment about Galloway is from his own mouth which someone tried to cut in its entirety the other month without leaving even the best known part (" Since it is one-versus-one, and I don't plan to edit war, I would welcome other opinions. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like George. I've no idea if the Telegraph's allegations against him are true or not. But I do hope not.
Some initial thoughts on this matter: the removal of quotes on the George Galloway page by both users appears to be in the wrong. Of the two quotes that Philip Cross removed (and HouseofChange restored), I would certainly keep the first, but maybe not the second (doesn't really strike me as all that memorable, or even relevant anymore). The removals of quotes by HouseofChange earlier from the page also seem to be overreach - I wouldn't necessarily keep all of it - the passages are a bit long - but I would keep the essence of them.

As to the claims of a COI, there does seem to be at least the appearance of this by Philip Cross. I have seen much good editing by this user and do not feel that they should be severely punished, but perhaps the George Galloway page should be left alone after the changes I already mentioned. In fact, it might be best if both users refrained from editing the page once this occurs. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this, User:UDScott. I would be happy to comply with your suggestions, and to leave the article in its current state with the addition of the first of the two Deborah Ross quotations. There is indeed the "appearance" of COI for Philip Cross's editing anything related to George Galloway, a COI to which he has admitted, so I hope he will also comply with your suggestion to stop, to avoid further embarrassment to the Wikimedia project. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for any further resolution on this matter, I have made another edit to George Galloway that I think is typical of trying to turn it into a useful source of George Galloway quotes rather than an attack page. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quote by a prominent journalist, like Tanya Gold, is likely to be superior to a mere news source. Part of the 2019 BBC News source HouseOfChange did not quote is also "very prejudicial" if one is so inclined: "But he [Galloway] was accused of being racist himself, including by Tottenham [Hotspur] itself.
In a statement, the club said: 'It's astounding in this day and age to read such blatant anti-Semitism published on a social platform by someone who is still afforded air time on a radio station on which he has previously broken broadcast impartiality rules."
On Monday morning, talkRADIO said it had cancelled Mr Galloway's show, adding: 'As a fair and balanced news provider, talkRADIO does not tolerate anti-Semitic views'" (change from double to single quotation marks in this citation). Given the issues with his politics, a "useful source of George Galloway quotes" will be dominated by negative comments, assuming editors keen to gloss over his flaws do not have an undue role. Wikiquote articles are not required to be balanced. Positive passages in reliable sources about this politician are scarce and those online are usually from (like myself) non-notable individuals, unlike very many of his critics. Philip Cross (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(restart indents) The BBC, unlike the Tanya Gold source, includes GG's explanation of his "Israel flag" remark. IMO, GG's own explanation is a useful service to our readers. The context is even clearer if we cite GG's actual tweet "Congratulations to the great people of #Liverpool to the memory of the socialist miner #BillShankley to the fallen #96 to those who fought for justice for them and to the Liverpool dockers. No #Israël flags on the Cup!" Commenters immediately criticized the last bit, e.g. "Its sport and your better than that final comment George?earning the immediate responses from GG "Why are they flying Israël flags if it’s “sport”. Second commenter "Tottenham has no Israeli affiliation but a strong JEWISH fanbase. You’re usually very concerned about not being labeled an antisemite. Please explain why this tweet is not antisemitic?" GG response "What are Israël flags if not affiliation with, er, Israël ?" GG is pro-Palestine, anti-Israel. He has repeatedly denied being antisemitic, although of course not one of those denials is among the quotes chosen by PC except for one instance, where a denial is mentioned and immediately denounced as hypocritical. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only quoted the most important part from the BBC News item to demonstrate the Tanya Gold quote can be considered fair comment and to avoid the too long: didn't read meme. Galloway did not sue talkRADIO, or Tottenham football club, for libel/defamation over their comments, or his former employer for terminating his contract. Philip Cross (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanya Gold comment could not have been "considered fair comment" as the only representative of a very controversial remark by Galloway, a representation that omitted GG's own explanation -- unlike the BBC, the Jerusalem Post, and just about every other source describing the comment and its aftermath. How can you not see that? But this is exactly why you, PC, should not be editing articles where you have a strong COI, and according to ARBCOM that COI with accompanying bad editing choices extends well beyond George Galloway to a host of other British political figures that you either despise and seek to damage (Corbyn, Prince Andrew, etc. etc.) or cherish and choose to promote (The Times, Oliver Kamm, etc.) HouseOfChange (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HouseOf Change highlights edits he disagrees with, rather than bad practice on this website, and seems to prefer political positions well outside the mainstream. A report by the UK statutory body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission report in October 2020 found the Labour Party under Corbyn was (according to The Guardian) "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination over antisemitism"; Corbyn was removed from the Parliamentary Labour Party for effectively downplaying the validity of this conclusion. Can anyone see a pattern here? The quotes by Corbyn I removed from his article in the edit HoC cites (from as long ago as August 2022) date back more than 30 years to when Corbyn was a little known backbencher, and are long and obscure (unlike those quotes from Galloway's article HoC took exception to). In that edit to the Corbyn article, I added a short 2016 comment from a senior Labour backbencher, Margaret Hodge, as Corbyn's vote of confidence (which he heavily lost) was in progress at the time. Hodge's comment ("Make no mistake — unless we listen to our voters, our party faces political oblivion") proved insightful as Labour lost the next two UK general elections (the worst result since 1935 in the 2019 election). The Prince Andrew reference is actually to an edit to the article on Ghislaine Maxwell, a friend of his who is serving a 20 year imprisonment; the Prince is disgrace for his association with their mutual friend, Jeffrey Epstein. A twenty-year old photograph of the prince and Virginia Giufffre (then Roberts) with Maxwell in the background is notorious in the UK, so mentioning Prince Andrew in the introduction of her article is entirely justified.
I haven't worked on the Oliver Kamm Wikiquote article very much, I much prefer working on articles about prominent women. Kamm did write an article published in November 2018 concerning, what he termed, "credulous cranks" spreading conspiracy theories of direct relation to immediate issues. The left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article on the same subject six-months earlier.
The vast majority of my Wikiquote edits since August 2022 would not be admissible if the editing restrictions imposed on my Wikipedia account applied here, or indeed perhaps I should have been blocked here too some time ago as I was indefinitely barred from editing Wikipedia in late October 2022. HouseOfChange does not seem to be a dispassionate administrator in expecting fringe figures to be treated as though they are not fringe figures. Foreseeing a potential response from HoC, it is true Galloway recently won a parliamentary by-election in Northern England, but the website of his party states: "We defend the achievements of the USSR, China, Cuba etc." Very mainstream.
Having mentioned the tl:dr meme earlier, I have made an over-extended, if necessary, contribution myself. Philip Cross (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

((restart indents)) When PC first embarrassed Wikipedia in 2018, many admins were reluctant to restrict even his editing of the GG article, where he had a self-declared COI, a history of publicly taunting GG on Twitter starting in 2012, and a history of nearly 2000 edits, some at least quite tendentious. Hoping to let PC continue to edit on subjects where he was less tendentious, ARBCOM offered a topic ban for British politics. Unfortunately, PC was in 2022 kicked off Wikipedia entirely for repeatedly gaming the topic ban. His 180 (that's a lot!) edits to the George Galloway WQ article are every one of them in clear defiance of BLPCOI, which is policy. Occam's razor doesn't require me to have loony fringe political views in order to be concerned about PC's policy violations and the potential for renewed public embarrassment to the wiki project. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Wikipedia, media coverage of Wikiquote is negligible to non-existent. HoC's comment about "renewed public embarrassment" reads like a threat. Surely not. Philip Cross (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only "threat" here is PC's continued IDIDNTHEARTHAT about policy violation. What drew press coverage of PC's previous antics wasn't press attention to Wikipedia in general but loud public complaints by people whose articles he savaged. And if such complaints get made about WQ articles, the more familiar word "Wikipedia" will appear front and center in any resulting stories. HouseOfChange (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "press attention" gained was largely from the Russian English-language media, upset supporters of Vladimir Putin and Bashir al-Assad on twitter and bloggers rather than any any outlet which might be considered a reliable source. It was thought I must be working for the CIA or the British security services. Philip Cross (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If only it had stayed there, rather than being amplified by various blogs, critics of Wikipedia, the BBC, Wired, etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the BBC and Wired (openly available archive version) are reliable sources and might be considered "press attention". Craig Murray states (second paragraph) "this looks like the behaviour of a deranged psychotic" and in the next paragraph suggests my wiki account is "a false persona disguising a paid operation to control wikipedia content, or is a real front person for such an operation in his name" and then describes me as a "sad obsessive no friends nutter". Fivefilters, in the main, criticised my edits to articles about individual Assadists, Putinists and others on the political fringe who tend to find reliable sources objectionable. On my Galloway edits, the BBC page says: "But it's difficult to get an overall sense of whether those changes were solely motivated by any particular political bias on behalf of the person behind the account. For example, a sentence where Galloway criticised the Labour Party as 'Tony Blair's lie machine' was removed, with Cross citing 'partial repetition, poor source'. In another case, Cross removed links to lurid tabloid headlines about Galloway's private life. In addition, many of the edits were simply grammatical or stylistic. At one point Cross noted: 'It helps the article if each sentence or paragraph does not begin with 'Galloway' or 'He'.'" Is this the best HouseOfChange can do? Philip Cross (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC and Wired are "press attention." Have you useful thoughts to share about your COI editing of George Galloway? HouseOfChange (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all the assertions you make above, its very limited "press attention" which you attempted to bulk-up with self-published material. Philip Cross (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt was to show the progression from self-published material (a very small sampling linked) to wider embarrassment. Have you useful thoughts to share about your COI editing of George Galloway? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Galloway issue, @UDScott wrote above: "As to the claims of a COI, there does seem to be at least the appearance of this by Philip Cross." So not quite definitive from an uninvolved administrator. UDS commented in their 2 April post that "it might be best if both users refrained from editing the page." I have not edited either the article itself or the discussion page since the day before, unlike HouseOfChange. The "progression from self-published material (a very small sampling linked) to wider embarrassment" was an avalanche of conspiracy theorists on social media. Why does HouseOfChange appear to identify with them? Philip Cross (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why WQ should ignore the multiply declared COI that should preclude PC from editing George Galloway. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philip Cross@HouseOfChange I'm calling @BD2412 if possible to stop such quarreling. It's going to nowhere instead of messy fight now... -Lemonaka 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka I regret if I was too wordy responding to PC's attacks and innuendo. I hope other admins will not ignore my policy concern here. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to begin here, but I do think it would be best for both editors involved in this dispute to refrain from editing the article. BD2412 T 03:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]



Seems to be pushing some heavily anti-semitic POV. Would very much recommend perma-ban!

Am I in the right place here? Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sam Williams and Sam Williams (possible xwiki spam targets)


Dear admins, I would like to alert you that these 2 entries are possible xwiki spam targets. The involved IPs (such as Special:Contributions/2402:9D80:C3A:AFF5:D86B:A966:3190:308B) are lock evasions, please see w:simple:Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/Sam Williams and w:simple:special:permalink/9517458#Ducdo929 for their previous accounts. Please decide what to do with these pages. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 16:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please protect Open Season (2006 film): Edit war. --Leonidlednev (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done - semi-protected for two weeks. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please rangeblock these set of IP addresses.

edit, and (among other IPs from a similar range) constantly add nonsensical articles featuring fake characters like "Knoah" and have done copious amounts of vandalism to the Sailor Moon article. I suggest these IPs be ranged blocked for a period of time because of their constant vandalism. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done, pages deleted, reverting as well. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection request


Please protect My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (film): Edit war. --Leonidlednev (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just edit warring; two IP addresses have vandalized the article. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Y Done for six months. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism



Please block for persistent vandalism of Drake (musician) KonstantinaG07 (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done - I've blocked this IP and also protected the Drake (musician) page as well. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism



Please block 2600:1700:BFA1:AEB0:B442:5767:77BD:491B/64 for persistent vandalism, I suggest 6 months because it's been going on for 1 year. Thanks. --Spinoziano (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked for 3 months, because we rarely give very long blocks to IP addresses. Any more experienced admin who wants to change this is welcome to do so. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems remarkably persistent for an IPV6. I say good call. GMGtalk 00:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: you blocked the last IP, I suggested blocking the range: it had already been blocked in 2023. Thanks.--Spinoziano (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@Spinoziano  Y Done Blocked for 6 months since not a large range and lots of vandalism. -Lemonaka 11:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of “Femme Fatales” page.


This user has vandalized the Femme Fatales (TV series) page. This is the vandalizer I’m talking about: Special:Contributions/

And this is the proof of his vandalism:

Could you please block him indefinitely so that he doesn’t cause any more problems? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this vandalism: —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He always does too much excessive quotes on Wikiquote pages and that is against the Wikiquote terms. AdamDeanHall (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but you're giving irrelevant diffs. And while excessive quotations is a real problem, from the perspective of copyright as well as actual quotability, your case is pretty weak with off-topic evidence and that doesn't really constitute vandalism: if he's making good faith edits that are just wrong or bad, that is very different from vandalism. Additionally, looking at all of these edits, these aren't even additions to the quotations as such, but some kind of stage directions and links to Wikipedia or other context. I don't see what the problem is. Lemonaka can you give your perspective here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He adds bad vulgar and profanity words to the excessive quotes on the Wikiquote pages, and that is the problem he always causes. AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a very flawed person and didn't see this in the diffs above. Did I miss something? Can you show me a diff like this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply] AdamDeanHall (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks. And in the original, does it say "harlots" or "whores"? I'm not familiar with it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think a common character would speak lots of porn-related scripts in common films or series. -Lemonaka 07:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the original version, it had a "W" word which I am not allowed to say. In my version, it says "harlots". AdamDeanHall (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we not allowed to say "whore"? I'm guessing that if you can say it on daytime television, David Bowie can put it in a song title, and it's in the King James Bible at least twice... it's probably okay. GMGtalk 10:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we are allowed, since there's no censorship on Wikimedia.
I suspected this one is not good,
That's the reason I blocked them. -Lemonaka 13:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just caught this user adding too many excessive quotes to the Jarhead (film) page. This is the user I am talking about: Special:Contributions/

And here is the proof of what he’s been up to:

Could you please block this user as soon as possible so that he doesn’t any more excessive quotes to any more Wikiquote pages? AdamDeanHall (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to his talk and consider it a final warning. If someone else feels the need to escalate, that works for me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting temporary page protection.


Viewing the edit history of these two reveals that there has been frequent edit warring from one IP versus a couple of other ones. The edit warring goes back to April, so I'm suggesting these pages be temporarily protected. 03isrflo62410 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These have been done. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit (talk · contributions)'s edit seemed not so constructive, the pages they created are in bad style and likely some testing? I'm inclined to deleting all the pages they created but waiting for further advice from other sysops. -Lemonaka 02:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted them. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet problem


Sockpuppet of user blocked on the English Wikipedia left this on my user page. - Donald Albury (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no quotes but the author is removing the SD tag. Please delete the page. MathXplore (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]