Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Reference desk
Request an article
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
Report vandalismVotes for deletion

This is a messageboard for all administrators.


Please feel free to report incidents, a complaint about an administrator, or anything you want administrators to be aware of.

Please be aware that these pages aren't the place to bring disputes over content, reports of abusive behavior, or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. You are better to talk with that editor by mail or on talk, or ask other editors their opinion on Village pump.

The chief purpose of this page is to allow admins to ask each other for help and/or information, to communicate ideas, and for admin talk to happen.

However, any user of Wikiquote may post here. Admins are not a club of elites, but normal editors with some additional technical abilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message.

If you do, please sign and date all contributions, using the Wikiquote special form "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.

To request special assistance from an administrator, like deletion, use appropriate pages or tags.

To request assistance from a specific administrator, see [[User talk:Whoever]].

If there is another page which is a more natural location for the discussion of a particular point, please start the discussion there, and only put a short note of the issue, and a link to the relevant location, on this page. Put another way, to the extent possible, discussions are better off held somewhere else, and announced here. This will avoid spreading discussion of one topic over several pages (thereby making them harder to follow), and also reduce the rate of changes to this page.

Pages needing admin intervention:

See also:

Bureaucrat tasks:




Is Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker a sockpuppet for rupert loup?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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


First, Can this editor add an English name in their signature, so that it is easier to communicate in English language, instead of copy pasting every time. Communicating with fellow editors should not be made difficult by adding non English text, not supported by English Keyboards. As GMG said, this is allowed here so striking this part. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Second, on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India this user has been adding massive amount of non notable content from the site Wire and propaganda sites like MEMRI, [1] that are also blatant copyright violations, on political topics related to India. He has restored the copyright violation which I have removed again, as I understand that Copyright violations should not be restored as they are serious offences with potential legal consequences, yet this user is re-adding the copyrighted content and in doing so, is accusing me of edit warring. The dispute related to the content is being discussed on the talk page of these two articles. I have challenged some of his edits and in retaliation, a report has been made on VP by this user against me. This user's behavior on other articles should also be checked in light of these findings of CopyVios.

Third, on 2020 Palghar mob lynching this user has added non notable libelous and defamatory comments by a controversial TV anchor named Arnab Goswami. (Goswami has been sued in India for his baseless and defamatory comment) No justification was given when I challenged the addition of those comment as a quote on the article. I had removed this libelous comment from the article and had mentioned in the edit summary that said "Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people. This is not the case here". But this user resorted to restoring the libel blatantly edit warring without first making consensus on why the addition of this libelous content is justified on the said article. On top of that this user called my good faith edits as vandalism (a personal attack). This user re-added the content and in doing so is accusing me of edit warring. The blatant use of non-notable quotes that are also polemics by this editor on Wikiquote need an investigation by Admins.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pratap Pandit: I've made a thread on the village pump. Don't cry wolf to an administrator, this is not a vandal. You both are in a content dispute and I advise you both not to edit war against each other. Adminstrators, please refer to the VP thread for additional info. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
This was a content dispute, if was you who advised the other user on my talk page to escalate this to Village pump. I posted there, and Butwhatdoiknow asked to move to WQ:AN. Then you accuse me of crying wolf for follwing your advice? Great!. Where did I call him a vandal ? I never called him or anyone vandal, in fact this user called my good faith edits as vandalism. Butwhatdoiknow asked me to move this thread to this noticeboard from VP. Now you want to move this to VP. Why dont you (Dibbydib) and Butwhatdoiknow discuss among yourselves first before telling me where to take this ? Yes there are content disputes and those are being discussed on the article talk. This thread here is to address the behavior problems of this user and it is not related to only these 2 pages. He is doing the same on all the pages of Wikiquote. So this thread should reach its conclusion on its own merits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pratap Pandit: I've made a thread where I additionally talked to დამოკიდებულება. Can you explain your block on enwiki? dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You can continue creating your threads. The behavior problems raised about User:დამოკიდებულება still needs to be addressed here and they are not just related to these 2 articles. If you think I am doing something that violates Wikiquote policies here, then please start another thread with evidence, so that I can respond there. This thread is for User:დამოკიდებულება. Do not hijack all my threads trying to belittle me. I have raised valid concerns and an admin should review them on their merits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Using polemic and unpopular quotes Propaganda Sites"
This user is using propaganda sites like MEMRI. Media Bias Fact Check says about MEMRI. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks.". If a propaganda site is all this user can find to support a random comment on the internet then that is a good indication of that random quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. On being challenged to establish why those quotes merit an inclusion into Wikiquote, this used failed to give any justification saying it is impossible and then using offensive comments like "This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it." --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
In addition to what was already said by me and others about this "argument", which I will not repeat now, MEMRI is quoted across wikiquote at dozens of articles. Of course, similar NGOs are quoted across wikiquote as well --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note Thankfully administrator GMG has removed the copyright violations from "2020 coronavirus pandemic in India over which this User:დამოკიდებულება was edit warring on the page. In the edit summary GMG had said, " This reprints literally the entire article word-for-word. So yes, this is a copyright violation. Please do not restore. " GMG's statement confirms that I was right in calling it out as COPYVIO and removing it.- --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts to edit same articles[edit]

  1. Nwalker3 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  2. Jedi3 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) Talk Archive 1, 2 3, 4 (Blocked thrice and interaction banned in April 2018)
  3. Luke Jedi Skywalker (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) started on 17 May 2018 while ban was still in place
  4. ΞΔΞ (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  5. დამოკიდებულება (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

All these accounts have similar edit pattern on the same pages. See the following links of the same articles edited by all these accounts. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they aren't the person. Jedi3 stopped editing at April 2018, Luke Jedi Skywalker in October 2018, ΞΔΞ in January 2020, and Nwalker3 in May 2017. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
How does that prove that they are not same users ? He creates new account to evade blocks and scrutiny. The diffs speak for themselves, I can add more diffs if needed, but I feel these are enough. Let an admin with "special capabilities" of looking at it from a neutral perspective respond. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
As in a CheckUser? Dibbysock (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
That user was only blocked and IB'd for 30 days. And even after the ban was lifted, Jedi3 has not been editing since. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
There was no sockpuppet investigation concerning those users. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, we don't have local CheckUsers, so if there is some substantive allegation of sockpuppetry that should be investigated, you have to go to m:Stewards. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ok. Also all socks use the same authors and sources on similar topics:
  • Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu mind - [24] [25] [26] [27]
  • The case of anti-muslim political propaganda on Wikiquote was raised here (account: ΞΔΞ is mentioned)
  • Kishori Saran Lal, The Muslim Slave System in Medieval India - [28] [29] [30].
  • Sita Ram Goel, The Calcutta Quran Petition - [31] [32] [33]
  • Robert Spencer, The history of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS - [34] [35]
  • - [36] [37] [38] [39] --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The m:Steward found the accounts stale, and has asked for the the behavior changes to be discussed here. So requesting the admins to take a look at this disruption. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Harassment, Edit warring and copyright violations by Rupert loup[edit]

List of pages with Copyright violations by this user
Diffs of Edit warring and Copyright violations at the same time on 2020 coronavirus pandemic
  1. [40] Calling good faith edits as Vandalism when I had clearly mentioned Copyright violation in my edit summary and yet this user called my edit as vandalism (a personal attack)
  2. [41] Again restored the copyright violations with an inadequate edit summary
  3. [42] Again removed the quotes I added and restored the copyright violations , This was after admin GMG removed the CopyVios
  4. [43] And the Edit warring + CopyVio continues
  5. [44] A fifth revert Edit warring + CopyVio continues.
  6. [45] The quote at 293 words also violated Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes, yet this user continues to edit war.
  • Harassment. diff of false accusations without any iota of evidence.

On 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India

This user has again restored his copyright violations. An admin should intervene.

Rupert loup has removed the quotes by PM Modi that I had added. Also there is a discussion ongoing about the copyright violations from the wire and this user has re-added the content without joining the discussion or explaining why this is not a copyright violation. Even his edit summary is inadequate. I request an admin to revert this edit as it is blatant copyright violations that exposes WMF to legal risks as this user seems to be clueless about how serious the Copyright violations can be. I am not reverting this edit as they are accusing me of edit warring but an admin must take action. This edit should not be allowed to stay in violation of our CopyVio rules. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Harassment by Rupert loup
  • As seen in this diff, Rupert loup is falsely accusing me of being uncivil and attacking, without providing any iota of evidence of those accusations, in the form of diffs despite asking. I consider these baseless accusations as a malicious act intended to harass me. Accordingly I request an admin to act on these. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Blanking pages [46][47] is WQ:VANDALISM, accusing others of bad faith and making insults about their linguistic intelligence [48][49] are WQ:ATTACK, you are not behaving in a WQ:CIVIL manner. If it is difficult to you to deal with other users you should wait for an admin. Rupert Loup 07:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I had clearly mentioned Copyright violation in my edit summary and yet this user called my edit as vandalism. This is in-fact a personal attack and deserves a warning on its own for calling good faith edits as vandalism. I have already replied to all your accusations on the special retaliatory thread filed against me so I will not repeat those responses here. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
As to Rupert loup's blocks, both were significantly short. Neither block exceeded a full day. And he was never blocked for anything but edit-warring. Nothing more. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly it shows that this person is a repeat offender who continues the same problematic behavior that led to his blocks. Let an admin decide what needs to be done. You are not an admin, why are you arguing in his support, did he ask you ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
As a defense witness. There is no rule against it. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Harassment and Edit warring by User:DawgDeputy[edit]

Edit Summaries used in the above reverts.
  • [57] "Undo revision 2795669 by Pratap Pandit (talk) Again, bias."
  • [58] "Undo revision 2795736 by Pratap Pandit (talk) You act as if you make the rules. You do not. Stop impersonating administrators or just stop editing/bullying all together."
  • [59] "Undo revision 2795746 by Pratap Pandit (talk) Watch your language, and stop impersonating admins."
  • Diffs of edit warring and removing my comment on another user's talk page [60] [61] [62]
  • Diffs of edit warring on this noticeboard to refactor my comment [63] [64] [65]
  • Editing my comments [66], [67]
  • Falsely accusing me of harrassment [68] [69] [70] [71]
  • Blockshopping on 7 different Administrator's talk page, even though a report is already posted here. [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]
Content from my user that this user DawgDeputy is repeatedly removing.
Copied from Wikiquote:Wikiquote Point #3
Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people.

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

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

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

While I appreciate the fact that my userpage is no longer vandalized, My comment on the other user's talk page have still not been restored. Moreover, DawgDeputy's edit summary in this edit where he says, "Just stop editing all together." is a clear confirmation of harassment and bullying by DawgDeputy, and an attempt to force me to stop editing. This still needs to be addressed. So I am still looking for an admin's help on this thread.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Considering the fact that you are also a sockpuppet (and there are at least five others, according to dibbydib in my report against you) of BabbarJatt on enwiki, it would be wise to simmer down on these egregious reports. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread is about your actions, you can discuss my edits in the other thread that you started in retaliation. Regarding this thread As I see it, you have still not restored my comments on the other user's talk page [79] [80] [81], nor have you apologized for edit warring and continuously harassing me. You are not absolved of any egregious act that was pointed, on this thread. All the concerns I pointed above are still valid and actionable by an admin. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I have nothing to apologize for, because I harassed no one, and you were the one who started the edit wars in the first place. We were clearly trying to stop you from evading your Wikipedia block and taking your frustrations out on Wikiquote. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If you were not harassing me then explain why Admin Ningauble reverted you and removed DawgDeputy's message from my User page, with the edit summary "Undo revisions by DawgDeputy (talk) – do not harass legitimate user page" ? Having a content dispute is not a crime, I immediately started talk page discussion threads for those disputes. You admit, in this comment of yours where you say " We were clearly trying to stop you ... ". So you now openly accept that you were working in connivance with Rupert loup and დამოკიდებულება to gang up on me and harass me to stop me editing on Wikiquote. This is a serious issue and this harassment gang needs to be brought to an end. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You left out "from evading your Wikipedia block and taking your frustrations out on Wikiquote", the very reason you were reported in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
This thread is about your edits not mine. This is Wikiquote, repeatedly talking about Wikipedia in an attempt to distract this thread is not going to help you evade from accountability of your harassment and false accusations.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there nothing to convince you to strike off this report that had been null and void from the very beginning? DawgDeputy (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You have not self reverted to restore my comments that you [removed from Rupert loup's page, nor have you apologized for ganging up with others for harassing me. So there is no reason for me to strike off this report. I have provided all the evidence and I stand by my report. Let an admin see this and decide what needs to be done. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You provided nothing sufficient or material, whereas we provided plenty of sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, which you continuously fail to refute. And again, we cannot apologize for something we did not do. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Sincerely hoping that an admin takes care of this "We" group of harassers. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Pratap Pandit[edit]

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

Constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup and myself, and refuses to admit defeat. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Plus, its user page acted as if it was making up rules, and had copied it from Wikiquote:Wikiquote, hence why it was marked for deletion. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: DawgDeputy had started the thread with the opening statement that also included "... constantly makes biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc.". On being challenged to provide evidence to back up his false claims, and failing to find evidence DawgDeputy has quietly removed the statement without striking off, despite being asked to strike it instead of removing [82]. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I have not made any biased edits. And always provided evidence for all my quotes. This is not a battle but if it helps you to feel better then I admit defeat. Now, please leave me alone. Let an admin take care of this. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Dibbydib says otherwise. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Dibbydib, is wrong. Speak for yourself. Please provide evidence where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc". I repeat, "I have not made any biased edits. And always provided evidence for all my quotes." --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
None of your evidence is sufficient, nor was it irrefutable. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You sir, have falsely accused me on this noticeboard of something without giving any evidence. Please provide evidence in the form of DIFF where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc". If you cannot provide any evidence for your claims, then you should Strike your unsubstantiated comments from this thread, as they are strong accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Does this dispute help matters in any way, shape, or form? To quote დამოკიდებულება:
"Where there is a dispute, and there is no consensus , the status quo ante (the state before the edit war) must be restored. The edit war started with Pratab's removals. That is how a consensus-based process works." DawgDeputy (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, those diffs are about content disputes being discussed on the talk page. None of those diffs answer what I had asked, or show me making biased edits without evidence. So asking again. Please provide evidence in the form of DIFF where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc".--Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly, your edits in that dispute were insufficient. You claimed they were copyright violation without providing evidence. I already answered your question, so this discussion is over. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly you seem to be clueless about what Copyright Violation is and what evidence was needed. Did it occur to you that there were other entries on Wikiquote:Copyright Cleanup Project as well and all of them have just a link for the CopyVio page. It is because the page itself is the evidence for CopyVio along with the link for the source (also on the same page). No further evidence is needed , but I am not sure why you are finding this hard to comprehend. No this discussion is not over yet, not until you provide evidence or strike off your false accusations from this page. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
And you personally attacked დამოკიდებულება, claiming he had a "weird" name. And editing it to remove that personal attack was too late. The damage was done. You should never have attacked him in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
At this point I am unable to decide if you are genuinely malicious against me or linguistically handicapped to comprehend that line. That diff does not show me calling that user weird. It shows me saying "Because of his weird name, I am unable to post on his user talk page." This is fact, when I tried posting on his talk page, I was getting server errors saying "Unidentified text in Header", And the only weird text in my content was his username in all its glory. So clearly the error was due to the weird script, that user is using, in his username in God knows what language. Eventually after some attempts I was able to post on his talk page, so I removed the line as it was no longer necessary. Again asking, please provide evidence through diffs, where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc".--Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I might add, this user has been proven as a sockpuppet of BabbarJatt on enwiki (SPI archive). Also note that Pratap had very similar editing habits on enwiki, with even the same exact pages. This is a major red flag.
If you ever see the accounts BabbarJatt, Cedix, Bajrang Ram, TedCarl, Apyn, Mr.Regalis editing on here, they're all Pratap. If any administrator would want to perform a block, it should be a global one as the offenders would just move to another wiki.
Also, their contributions are only solely based on this dispute, which raise even further concerns as a SPA. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
With that in mind, Pratap Pandit's egregious report against me for "harassing" it is null and void, considering it was only trying to stop me from defending Rupert loup. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
In case you didn't know this is wikiquote and you are supposed to discuss things about Wikiquote here. " If " I have violated any Wikiquote policy then I would like to hear. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Since the user refuse to remain WQ:CIVIL and keep doing WQ:ATTACK, we should wait for the intervention of an admin. We don't have an obligation to respond to threats and insults. Rupert Loup 00:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI, Matter of WP are not discussed at Wikiquote. Rupert Loup Having content dispute is neither punishable nor an offence. I have never violated WQ:CIVIL nor WQ:ATTACK. If you believe I did, then you are obligated to provide evidence of those problems in the form of diffs. Making random accusations without evidence is harassment. You should either provide the diffs or strike off your false accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You always do the same thing. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Getting this thread back on track. DawgDeputy, I am still waiting to see the evidence in the form of diffs, where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc". or else I expect you to strike off your egregious claims and apologize for wrongful accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I already provided more than enough evidence. Your contributions, your personal attacks, your history of poor behavior on Wikipedia, etc. How much more evidence do you need?
Furthermore, calling the Middle East Media Research Institute a "shitty propaganda site" (even if it really is questionable), especially with such language, is vulgar and offensive. This conversation is over until we get official word from an administrator. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
No this conversation is not over. You have provided Zero evidence from Wikiquote of your false accusation of "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc", and I am still waiting for you to strike off and apologize for your false accusations. What you are calling personal attack is your defective understanding of my statement, that I have already explained in detail, it is not my fault if your linguistic skills are so bad. This is Wikiquote, repeatedly talking about Wikipedia in an attempt to distract this thread is not going to help you evade from accountability of your harassment and false accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Note:On being challenged to provide evidence to back up his false claims, and failing to find evidence DawgDeputy has quietly removed the statement without striking off, despite being asked to strike it instead of removing [83]. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Will you desist harassing us and let the administrators decide what to do with you? Dibbydib and I provided all of the evidence necessary. Again, this conversation is over and will let the administrators determine your sentence.
Furthermore, I revised the report by removing the "bias" accusation, as I found nothing sufficient about that. But the rest is more than enough. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Zero evidence from Wikiquote has been provided by you two. If any admin considers any diff posted by you, as some sort of evidence, then I will be very surprised. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
You are not an administrator, so you cannot prove that the evidence we provided is insufficient. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Stop wikilawyering. You harrassed both DawgDeputy, Rupert loup, and დამოკიდებულება. (you being blocked on enwiki for being a sockpuppet (which you have avoided talking about), your WP contribs which are solely based on the exact same topics as your current contribs and you also removed all the quotes off this page and replaced them with your own with the other quotes having already been sourced, then you said to "stop edit warring" when you started the edit war to begin with, and then called it "vandalism and propaganda", then said it was "un-notable" and then also said it was a copyright violation (it's not), then said "let another editor decide this and revert me if he finds it appropriate", then, when two of us did, he tried to report us to administrators (you can see these above), among a lot of other things which you can see at Pratap's contribs. Here's the evidence you want, I guess :/ dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Pointing out the obvious lack of substance or evidence in this frivolous report against me (filed in retaliation for my reports above) is not wikilawyering. This is the "Sixth" time on this page, you are making claims about edits on Wikipedia knowing fully well that matter of WP are not discussed at Wikiquote. The only diffs worth looking at in your reply are the ones from Wikiquote, and they are all from content disputes being discussed on the respective talk page. After failing to find any evidence of policy violation against me, these members of the "We" group have added diffs of content dispute here, hoping to mislead others into thinking that this is some kind of offence to have a content dispute and discuss it on the talk page. In fact User:Dibbydib himself is a big part of the problem here. While the content dispute was ongoing, it was Dibbydib who first escalated this by asking to take "Content dispute" to Village pump. And in his comment above he accusing me of reporting the other editor's behavior. Dibbydib is now turning a blind eye towards all the disruption and harassment against me and is siding with the other harassers in trying to bludgeon me on the AN thread. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to look at things from a neutral perspective. Reading the threads on this page, it would be clear to anyone, that they have no evidence for violation of any policy against me. It seems this group is hoping for sanctions based on "imaginary violations" and content disputes. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Look. I was going to write a whole paragraph about this, but can for God's sake can you please tone this down? We're not some organised cabal.
Your contributions which are solely based on this dispute, plus your enwiki block, have given me suspicions of which the other editors have felt the same - you haven't explained this yet and if we're going to hope to solve this we better get these out of the way instead of dodging the question. ::: I've tried to be neutral when this whole fiasco started, it's just kinda hard for me not to get a bit over it. Pls understand this, and hopefully we'll come to a conclusion quickly and avoid all this drama. Dibbysock (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Holy Mother of Jesus, now you have repeated your accusations about Wikipedia for a " Seventh time " in a row on this page here. You have hijacked all my threads and spamming each one with drama. What is wrong with you ? Why is it so hard for you to grasp a simple point that matter about other Wikis are not discussed here. If you are not a part of this "we group" of harassers, then you should stop acting as a part of one. You have proved yourself utterly biased and appallingly hostile against me right from the time when you first posted on my talk page. If you have any doubt, you should consult a neutral user to give you some feedback on this false delusion of yours that "you have tried to be neutral" here. I have no content disputes with you and you are not a party to this thread yet, but looking at your campaign of harassment against me, you are clearly forcing me to make you one. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  1. This content reprinted the cited article in its entirety. So yes, it's a copyright violation. Differently formatting the entirety of a copyrighted work does not entitle you to a claim of fair use. I have not, as this point, redacted the content, to provide a window in the case that a non-admin wishes to actually selectively quote the work in a way that actually is covered under fair use, presuming that the content otherwise meets our inclusion criteria. But in accordance with global policy, it needs to be redacted. If anyone wishes to do so access it, please ping me when you have completed this so I can redact the content.
  2. Users are expected to have a working English language proficiency in order to contribute to an English language project. But user's are not required to have English language names or names in a Latin script. Please remember that we are using a single unified login, which applies across projects, and users may wish to use names in their native language, especially where they may contribute to non-English projects or multi-lingual projects. This is permitted by policy even if it may cause some minor inconvenience.
  3. Please do not import disputes from other projects. Please limit discussion to any disruption you feel has happened here. Local blocks are not global locks.
  4. Please everyone make some effort to remain civil and concentrate on content rather than contributor. GMGtalk 12:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I trimmed the content to the estential. Rupert Loup 20:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo, Rupert loup: thanks to both of you for trying to clear this thing up. The best thing to really do here is try and find a consensus on which quotes are included, which are hopefully both IMO. I might add that the article should be handled with care, it's a rather sensitive subject and all that. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Here is a proof that this user doesn't care about Copyrights] and just want to look for escuses to disrupt. This user is bassically violating all WQ:CIVIL by calling for blocks, hounding and Ill-considered accusations of impropriety against me. The user in this noticeboard is belittling contributors because of their language [84][85], calling people lier, being rude and with judgmental tone in talk pages and edit summaries. Rupert Loup 17:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
How is removing a copyright violation as a copyright violation proof they don't care about copyright? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. GMGtalk 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
GreenMeansGo: Because is not a copyright violation, Pratap Pandit was doing copyfraud since the content in openDemocracy is under a Creative Commons 4.0 licence. What doens't make sense at all is that you an admin is participating in Pratap incivility by also doing that Ill-considered accusation. Rupert Loup 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you claiming that just because 1 site out of 10 sites (reported here) is on Creative Commons so all the sites become Creative Commons ?--Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


Leonsupporter (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

Kill-all-uglies (history · watch)

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

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

Admin review of edit warring & subsequent blocks[edit]

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

(not an admin, of course) but this will probably be the last time I dabble in this topic.
@UDScott: This whole debacle did not just include two editors, somewhere between 3-6 were involved in the whole dispute. Heck, at one point I even took notice of the whole matter and there was a lot of toxicity in the air when I put in my two cents, which lead to a truckload of pings and arguments, and even messages from a certain user that I was leading a "campaign of harassment".
So, a special thanks to you for settling this whole thing, though I assume it'll be back soon, so keep an eye or two on this thread.
You can see all this toxicity buried somewhere on the AN thread, and someone even took it to my talk page.
Also, I've discovered a rather lovely global version of Twinkle [86] check it out if you want, it helps me a lot. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 07:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott: I support you. I also don't have the bandwidth to deal with all of the sniping on this page. Edit wars should stop and if there needs to be a CU, we should ask Stewards. Thanks for making the effort. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@UDScott:, Justin both of you claim that you lacked the time to review the case, yet both agree that a 2 day block was appropriate. How is it justified for a single revert, that I made to restore a maintenance template, that too on an article talk page ? Looks very harsh to me, especially when we have a policy of 3RR, and were discussing instead of futher reverting. If the 2 admins are trying to send some sort of subtle message through the block, then they should be open about it. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
First, let me say that I did not claim to have no time to review the case - my statement was that it had become so convoluted that it was hard to follow - as well as it seems that the conversation kept going even as I tried to intervene. I just couldn't keep up with it. Second, I am not trying to send any "subtle message" - I merely wish for the edit warring to end so that I could focus on the many other tasks that are needed to improve the site. But for now, I have asked for others to review the situation, since both parties objected to my actions. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
UDScott, ok, if something is hard to follow, the normal thing to do is to ask questions and seek clarifications, not issue blocks. Did you miss this talk page comment that I had made instead of continuing the edit warring ? Had the 2 users not been discussing and instead continuing with the reverts, then you could have used the excuse that you "merely wish for the edit warring to end", but in this case after 1 revert it had already stopped. There was no 3RR violation, there was no ongoing revert war and hence no urgency to block. Yet you proceeded to block, that too for 2 days. Refused to unblock and looked sideways on other admins, despite the unblock request (with guarantee that it would not be repeated). I am sorry and disappointed to say, but all these are clear signs of blatant admin high handedness and a trigger happy (block happy ?) adminship. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Admin response to Admin request on Admin noticeboard – I support the 2 day blocks, being long enough to catch someone's attention but not so long as to cause lasting harm. The sheer quantity of vituperative "discussion" on this board, notwithstanding any quibbles about the quantity or timing of reverts, is ample indication of the need for involved users to reconsider the approach. Disruption in general is something that Wikiquote administrators have considerable latitude to address as they see fit.

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


revDelete all of the vandalisim revisions on Edward De Bono. They are being used as links to more vandalisim -- 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring...[edit]

Between the following IPs: (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

And I could keep going.

Among the pages on which they have been warring:

I request action be taken against these IPs immediately. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@DawgDeputy: It looks like is trying to help, actually. The other IP's edits are clear vandalism/harassment. But .32 could be going about it better, yes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This is not edit warring, it is cross-wiki IP hopping vandalism that originated on English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Who is this LTA?. We've basically filtered out all sorts of attempts to add the vandalism directly to Wikipedia, so they're now resorting to vandalizing other WMF sites and linking to the revision on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that you are having a problem...[edit]

... with Remember, No Wiki (talk · contributions). You are welcome! Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Pratap Pandit[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pratap Pandit & დამოკიდებულება edit dispute[edit]

@დამოკიდებულება, Pratap Pandit:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you dibbydib for commenting.
The case at 2020 Palghar mob lynching is very easy:
  1. Arnab is a very notable journalist.
  2. He is known for having been very vocal (and some say, controversial) about the case. So he for sure deserves a quote about this lynching case. His voice is a unique perspective on this lynching.
  3. Furthermore, Arnab's reporting had political and even physical consquences. As widely reported, Arnab and his wife were physically attacked in Mumbai while driving in their car by some leaders of the local youth Congress party.[87]
  4. And last but not least, the quotes are also pithy and eloquent.
All this makes it clear that a quote of Arnab is deserved. One could of course still discuss which quotes of Arnab to include. See also my comments above at Wikiquote:Village_pump#User:Pratap_Pandit.
I don't know if there has been a coverup in this lynching case, as some claim, but what I do know is that the way that facts and quotes have been removed on wikiquote (and wikipedia) has all the signs of a "coverup". --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@დამოკიდებულება: Oh, that changes everything. I've also noticed Pratap was blocked for sockpuppetry on the English Wikipedia.
Users Cedix, Pratap Pandit, Bajrang Ram, TedCarl, Apyn, and Mr.Regalis (from enwiki) were proven to be the same user from this sockpuppet investigation. If you see two or more of these accounts contributing, hit up AN.
I also looked through Pratap Pandit's contributions and found that the user was most likely a single-purpose account. All signs point to NOTHERE. Will put on AN if this escalated. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If you think I have violated any rule, you are free to report me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • regarding MEMRI here is what Media Bias Fact Check says about them. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks."
Do you still need more evidence that MEMRI is a shitty propaganda site and not a reliable source ? If a shitty propaganda site is all this user can find to support a random comment on the internet then that is a good indication of that random quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
These issues are already discussed at WQ:AN (After User:Butwhatdoiknow asked to move it to WQ:AN) so I will not participate here. If you read the threads at WQ:AN , it would be clear to you. The only diffs worth looking at in their report are the ones from Wikiquote, and they are all from content disputes being discussed on the respective talk page. After failing to find any evidence of policy violation against me, these members of the "We group" have added diffs of content dispute, hoping to mislead others into thinking that this is some kind of offence to have a content dispute and discuss it on the talk page. In fact User:Dibbydib himself is a big part of the problem here. While the content dispute was ongoing, it was Dibbydib who first escalated this by asking to take "Content dispute" to Village pump. And in his comment above he accusing me of reporting the other editor's behavior. Dibbydib is now turning a blind eye towards all the disruption and harassment against me and is siding with the other harassers in trying to bludgeon me on the AN thread. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to look at things from a neutral perspective. Reading the threads on that page, it would be clear to anyone, that they have no evidence for violation of any policy against me. It seems this group is hoping for sanctions based on "imaginary violations" and content disputes. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done Discussion has been moved to Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion by Pratap_Pandit[edit]

Note: Italicized text imported from Village Pump by დამოკიდებულება. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) was recently blocked on wikiquote during which time he used socks to edit wikiquote. At a time when he was blocked at wikiquote, he edited on wikiquote with socks. A number of similar edits were made on similar topics by similar IPs on wikiquote, for example here: [88][89][90][91][92][93] The edits were of the exact same type and topics (articles) as the editing of some of his other socks. There are many other examples where Pratap edited articles that were edited by me (or Rupert) previously [94]. There was similar block evasion on other wikimedia projects on articles and topics Pratap edited before with similar account names/numbers. I am sure that this is a sock used for block evasion.

Pratap was already criticized for the hounding against me and Rupert, by for example going through dozens of articles edited by me or User:Rupert loup and making spurious claims, for harassing, for hounding, for stalking, and for not being WQ:CIVIL.

Rupert loup already told Pratap many times: : This is hounding, you should stop stalking and making baseless accusations. WQ:CIVIL and WQ:WQT.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit[edit]

Note: Italicized text imported from Village Pump by დამოკიდებულება. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Pratap has now added the checkcopyright template to dozens of articles without giving any evidence or proof explaining why they are needed. The only criteria seems to be if the article was edited by me or Rupert. The way this is done is disruptive. An admin has already reverted his edit on the Copyrights page.

The same pattern of Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit is seen in his mass nominations at Articles for deletion. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

:Village pump is the place to ask "[i]f you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works." Do you have such a question? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@User:Butwhatdoiknow this is in relation to User:Pratap Pandit, who has been blocked as a sock, troll etc on en.wp; although I've got absolutely no idea whatsoever why that's an issue for WQ... ——SerialNumber54129 16:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Still not clear what the question is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not the first report about Pratap, and I was just dropping a note on the continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit. It was already noted by others for example that Pratap's account may need a "global lock", that all signs point to WP:NOTHERE that he is engaging in continuous harassment and edit warring and that action should be taken by admins.

I was previously told to report Pratap's harassment and edit-warring at Village Pump (see the earlier reports above), and since most reports are still on this page, I added it here. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)