Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress

Community portal
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion

This page exists to post alerts about any incidents of vandalism that are occurring, so that other users and administrators can more promptly respond to them. Wikiquote's definition of vandalism is the same as Wikipedia's and can be seen at w:Wikipedia:Vandalism.

Care should be taken before assuming an initial contribution is vandalism unless it's blatantly obvious the user knows what they're doing.

If the vandal is known to attack more then one language, or more then one Wikimedia wiki, it is recommended they also be noted on Vandalism reports in Meta or a global block be requested on Steward requests/Global.

Adding reportsEdit

Please report vandalism by creating a new report by clicking one of the two buttons below. Be sure to include the username/IP address and the behavior that requires admin intervention.

New report on rupert loupEdit

rupert loup is once again edit warring. I have explained why I have made the edits I have made and I have asked him to take it to the talk page if he wants to discuss it further and he has refused and is edit warring. 03:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Show a diff of vandalism, please. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism (not a LTA?) and harassment. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 06:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done (not by me). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker2Edit

Vandalism and impersonation. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Yes check.svgY Done (not by me). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Inserting an image of a hammer and sickle into 25 articles in a couple of minutes. Aranya (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Woops, already done; globally blocked for xwiki vandalism --Aranya (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

New reportEdit

Typical nasty edit-warring IP vandal. Constantly tries to remove my warning templates on their talk page, see history [1] dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 10:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

See also death threat in edit summary. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Globally blocked, offending edit deleted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Cross-wiki LTA; please also semi-protect targeted pages or they'll just use another proxy. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And please revdel the edits also; this LTA loves to link to their edits from enwiki, e.g. [2]. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

New reportEdit

Adding controversial quotes made by them. Threats, accusations in edit summaries a la "you're brainwashed to the truth" (lol) dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandal's IP changed to dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Vandal's IP changed to dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Blocked (Non-admin closure) — by Kalki. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

New reportEdit

Check contribs, might need revision-deleting/edit-summary removal if we do that kind of thing here. Hurry—I'd forgotten how much hard work it was reverting trolls without rollback :) it's a X-wiki abuser too, so maybe call a steward. All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done globally, tho some Oversighter has completely remove some of the edits and I cannot locally revdel the abusive edit summaries. Working with a WMF person to have those removed as well. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

LTA. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-05-29, 08:21Edit

Obvious vandalism, edit warring. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

See also death threat in edit summary. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
And this summary, a death threat too. Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-05-29, 18:29Edit

DawgDeputy won't stop shouting at me. 2606:A000:FC11:7400:C9AC:BDE:1C5D:8EDB 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of shouting prior to this frivolous report? DawgDeputy (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
That is, outside of these frivolous edits, which prove that you are a vandal and a sockpuppet. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-4, 22:46Edit

Vandalism. Samuele2002 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-7Edit

The user keeps inserting a fabricated quote in a top level article at Muhammad. I have explained on the talkpage that the quote is by Bhai Bala, whose existence is disputed and whose writings are considered to be fabrications. At most, it could be moved to the Misattributed section, but it is not notable enough for this top level article.

The user keeps reinserting the quote without discussing on the talkpage.

I don't want to edit war and this is a top level article, so it needs attention from admins. დამოკიდებულება (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is the edit [3] --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please ban User:დამოკიდებულება he keeps on removing sourced content. Also this is attributed to Guru Nanak as proven by the source here: [4] —This unsigned comment is by Indrooooz (talkcontribs) .

@Indrooooz: It seems like this issue of misattribution has already been covered at the article's talk page. As per my observations, the quote you're adding has been falsely attributed to Guru Nanak, and left without a source. It'd be best to leave this to discussion rather than edit warring. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 05:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
User:Dibbydib, please see my most recent comment in the talk page. If you look at the source it clearly states that Guru Nanak is being quoted within Bhai Bala. It is not fake. Indrooooz (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming to this a little late, but I'm looking thru დამოკიდებულება's edits and they seem very sensible. For that matter, this edit by Indrooooz includes some sensible changes, such as removing links to a wiki but also reinserts this spurious quotation from someone at Dhaka University with no actual attestation that anyone else can verify. This is a content dispute that got heated and I don't think merits blocking anyone as of yet but I am reverting to the last edit by დამოკიდებულება and protecting the page for awhile to encourage you two to post to talk. Please do so in a calm manner and ping me if you need me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Koavf, sikhiwiki is not a reliable source as per WP:RS. Also, this quote is from Guru Nanak. See the actual source here [[5]. On page 8 it clearly says Nanak is being quoted here. Indrooooz (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Indrooooz: I don't know why you are telling me this: I just wrote "Indrooooz did a good job by removing that wiki". I also don't know why you inserted a quotation where you have a citation for it but without the citation. Why are you posting this information here? —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
It is good that Indroooz has started using the talkpage now. I have replied to Indrooz there. @Koavf:, the quote which was moved to talk here should be removed from the article because it clearly is offtopic and is about Muslims and not about Muhammad. This was already moved to the talkpage, but it was also reverted by Indrooz here.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@დამოკიდებულება: Discussions about the content should be at the talk page. Please ping me if you need me there (by the way, your {{yo}} did not send me a notification). —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-8Edit

Xsaorapa keeps spamming dozens of articles with fact templates (to SOURCED quotes), copyright templates (without giving any evidence, proof and explanation on the talkpage as to why he thinks it is a violation, and which quote is a violation), and the NPOV templates (without explaining on the talkpage why he added it).

Some days ago, Xsaorapa has used a sock to give instructions to his meatpuppet (User:Pratap Pandit), who did exactly the same, but now the meatpuppet master is continuing the same. The way this is done is highly disruptive.

This is part of the history of personal attacks, harassment, hounding, stalking, intimidation and edit-warring, and of spreading false and misleading claims and outright lies, of this user. დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

And the user keeps making personal attacks on various pages.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The spamming of the templates seems solely motivated by harassment, hounding, stalking and intimidation, and by censorship [6] [7] [8] [9] --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@დამოკიდებულება: I'm confused: edits like this are totally appropriate and the diffs you provided above this comment were performed by someone else. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This false report has been done in retaliation to this and this. --Xsaorapa (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Though this is not appropriate to warrant vandalism, I suggest moving discussion to the administrator's noticeboard. For the editors involved, don't fight fire with fire. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 07:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There are several issues here. First, this is not done in good faith, but is part of a history of personal attacks, harassment, hounding, stalking and intimidation.

Here is a timeline of the past few days:

  1. On 16 May, Xsaorapa started giving meatpuppet instructions to User Pratap Pandit by using his sockpuppet User Sunfee over email and/or little used talkpages
  2. On 18 May, Pratap started mass templating articles edited by me or other users, which other users have called harassment. The first case was at Talk:Rajendran Narayanan.
  3. On 27 May, the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry got exposed
  4. On 5 June, the meatpuppet master (Xsaorapa) took over from Pratap and started exactly the same mass templating that his meatpuppet Pratap did just some days before.

This is just plain harassment, hounding, stalking and intimidation. Maybe 80 percent of all quotes on WQ don't have entirely complete citations ("by preference", a complete citation should include Edition number, ISBN number, page number and other details) but they have sufficient details (Author, title of the book, year of publication,....). But Xsaorapa is very selective and only complains the users he is stalking. The meatpuppet did the same. "by preference" does not mean "mandatory".

Secondly, as I explained on Xsaorapa's talkpage (but he deleted it), this is not the right way to it.

Template:Fact is only for quotes with UNSOURCED statements. This tag will categorise tagged articles into Category:Articles with unsourced statements

But the templates were spammed to SOURCED quotes. All of the quotes are properly sourced, in conformity with the standards at wikiquote. There is no policy that says that the quotes are sourced wrongly. Wikiquote:Templates/People says that a citation should include author, co-authors and title (there are "optional clarifications").

I asked him to use the talkpage instead. If there is a genuine reason in good faith, he should simply state on the talkpage which quotation and book should be checked. (I have also started improving some of the citations). --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@დამოკიდებულება: You will make your case much better if you provide very pithy posts with directly relevant diffs. E.g. "User:x posted fact templates to sourced articles: [diff 1], [diff 2], [diff 3]." and that's it. Long posts with ALL CAPS SHOUTING and bold emphasis in the middle and no links to any actual malfeasance are not as compelling. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for the formatting issues. I was copying text from his talkpage and other places, in which discussions I had to repeat obvious things.

Xsaorapa has been spamming spurious tags always with no rationale:

  • Spamming of fact template: for example here despite the fact that page numbers are included. Many more examples see his contributions starting from June 8 here.
    • As explained above, this is the wrong template for sourced quotes, the talkpage should be used instead
  • Spamming of copyvio template (see his edits here starting on June 5)
    • He should explain on the talkpage and give some rationale/proof/evidence for the claim which he has not done even once
  • Spamming of npov template
    • He is spamming the article mostly to articles of cases of genocide or massacres against Hindus. Examples are articles about the Bangladesh War genocide [10], the Partition of India genocide, the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiris, and of various articles related to cases of Islamist intolerance or persecution. (See here, most articles were added by Xsaorapa).

This seems to imply that he is concerned about quotes in which Hindus are described as victims of genocide or massacres. If a nazi user would spam the npov template to the Holocaust and World War II articles because there are too many quotes about Jewish victims, he would probably get blocked. But the analogy is not far off. This is what human rights activist Benkin writes about this analogy:

This book contains quite a few references to Nazi Germany, and there is a tendency for many people to discount such comparisons because they are so overused and often in simplistic and inappropriate ways. I am no less tolerant of such facile uses of a horrific set of events; and I find their overuse an insult to the memories of the victims. But I am using it rather extensively in this book precisely because the parallel is appropriate, certainly in the similar end foreseen by Islamists for Bengali Hindus and Nazis for Jews. If that recognition awakens the world to action, then this will be one of the most important uses of the comparison since World War II.

Xsaorapa has been spamming spurious tags always with no rationale, he was offering no rationale at all, neither on the talk page, nor anywhere else. That is disruptive, and the tags should be removed as clearly unjustified, in the absence of any concrete issues or evidence and proof raised on the talkpage. --დამოკიდებუილება2 (talk) 11:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-9, 02:34Edit

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

It belittled me even though it clearly violated protocol repeatedly. Please take serious action against it, and strike its edit summaries. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 02:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-10, 05:04Edit

Constant, long-term vandalism on List of The Simpsons crank calls (historywatch) . Also consider semi-protecting the page. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 06:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Mostly. The first IP is not obviously a vandal. Edits like this are maybe not entirely correct but not as egregious as the other two IPs. If you have a diff I'm missing, show me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: That IP did have similar traits to the others. Firstly, the user was solely contributing only to that article, and the user started editing Wikiquote at ~5:00 UTC and stopped at ~6:00, which is almost identical to's edit history. Also, this edit caught my eye as vandalism, although most of their other contributions were very subtle, though perhaps it was an attempt to "cloak" the previous vandalism. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 09:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point. Obvious socking. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-13, 01:15Edit

Vandalism. Samuele2002 (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done globally blocked. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandal IPEdit

2601:8b:c303:8ff0:942e:daf9:a8b3:f2bf (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log) Vandalism at Presidency of Donald Trump. Rupert Loup 00:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-16, 01:47Edit

Delete my talk page too. Thank you! Stanglavine (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done thanks —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-23, 01:54Edit

Vandalism --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-26, 02:25Edit

Just click on any one of them. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-27, 19:54Edit

Creating pages out of project scope --DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-28, 20:45Edit

Spam account. Rupert Loup 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


Maybe it is time to start protecting articles like McDonald's. And please go through that and other articles to remove shit like a username here, an edit summary here and here, etc. User:UDScott, you've semi-protected this before, I see. Please. And there's a couple more. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-06-30, 23:15Edit

Vandalism. Samuele2002 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Locked. ~riley (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-07-2, 23:15Edit

A vandal crossing from Commons, using his talkpage as a forum to launch insults to Coomons users. Tm (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Was done. ~riley (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-07-4, 04:07Edit

Vandalism only --DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 23:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

New report on DawgDeputyEdit

I found evidence that he might (not for sure) be sockpuppeting and reported it to the Administrators' noticeboard. Instead of responding in a civil manner, he started to vandalize or remove my edits four times. Additionally, given his history of inappropriate behavior on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:User:DawgDeputy, I believe that a global block of at least one month is in order.

Edit: Look through his history, he is still deleting my edits instead of responding. At least a dozen times.

Edit 2: The fact that he is extremely hostile probably proves that he is sockpuppeting like I initially claimed's_potential_sockpuppetry


Although this is old sockpuppet evidence, I tried to submit it before and it was removed for some reason.

He also claimed he could ban me on my talkpage, though he's not an admin, and kept vandalizing:

Ylevental (talk) 11:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


Ylevental (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ylevental: This is for vandalism, not sockpuppetry. We don't have local CheckUsers here so if there needed to be an investigation, it would have to go to m:Stewards. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks for letting me know. What is the best way to contact them? Ylevental (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ylevental: Anyone is free to post there and ask for stewards' assistance, I think that it's probably wiser to see if other admins think there's a problem here worth investigating. I personally don't. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: For the record, I am completely innocent of all Ylevental's so-called "wrongdoings". TLPG and I are not the same person. We may both have the same ambitions, which is undoing unnecessary submissions, but we are clearly different people. DawgDeputy is the one and only account I use here. Plus, I looked through TLPG's edits, and there are a lot of edits he made that I would never do, such as submit to M*A*S*H (TV series). I know too little of that series. I never even made a major edit there (let alone any at all). Most of those other pages-- I only made edits to help prevent problematic edits. This case has been frivolous beyond frivolous from the very beginning. That is why I kept trying to delete Ylevental's false report. But it persistently continues to reinstate it without solid evidence. Plus, non-admins have every right to post a warning on a problematic user's talk page (even though blocking is up to an administrator), but unlike most users, this one does not seem to understand. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@DawgDeputy: I still think you should have waited for an admin to respond instead of forcibly deleting it... If there's not enough evidence, then there's not enough evidence. Ylevental (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ylevental: I know a false report when I see one, and yours was no exception. Why file a report when you know that it has no irrefutable evidence against me? DawgDeputy (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There was significant overlap. No reason to act the way you did. Ylevental (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"Significant overlap"? A vast majority of our edits were completely different. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Ylevental (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)


Persistently falsely accuses me and TLPG (among other users) of sockpuppetry without hard, relevant, irrefutable evidence other than its easily-refutable say-so. I request it be blocked indefinitely before it goes after another innocent user.

And furthermore, non-admins are allowed to send warnings to problematic users. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@DawgDeputy: This is for vandalism, not low-level harassment and annoyances. Thanks for your work in stopping and spotting other vandals. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Koavf: I didn't know that there were no checkusers here, honest Ylevental (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC) is backEdit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

And it has learned nothing from its previous blocks. This time, I request it be blocked indefinitely. One year is not enough anymore. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

It continues to persist despite my warnings. Like I said, a year's blocking does not end its reign of vandalism. It only adds fuel to its fire. I request at years two years' worth of blocking against it. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-07-23, 10:56Edit

Continued vandalism after 2 warnings, tends to hide them under legitimate edits. See [11] [12] [13] [14] dibbydib 10:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-07-24, 18:36Edit

Link spammer IP. Rupert Loup 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 19:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-07-29, 19:09Edit

Persistent vandalism at 32 article. Rupert Loup 19:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 19:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-08-3, 08:03Edit

Link spammers. Rupert Loup 08:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 08:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC) (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log)

Nothing but vandalism and general all-around protocol violation. In addition to long-term blocking, indefinite protection on all the articles it vandalized. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Blocked for six months. Edits like this are either vandalism or just too low of quality to be acceptable. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, I haven't protected the pages yet but will if you see more IP vandalism. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC) (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISGUCstalktoyRBLsblock userblock log)

All edits are vandalism. Ahmad252 (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done --DannyS712 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

New report 2020-08-4, 08:29Edit

"Cheese" vandal back at it again on another IP dibbydib 08:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Blocked --DannyS712 (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)