Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikiquote
(Redirected from WQ:AN)
Jump to: navigation, search

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:




AdamDeanHall's article ownenership and censorship[edit]

AdamDeanHall has been called out on bad behavior by others, says a quote from a Disney representitive on Princess Leia not being sexualized is obscene; even though it's a press statement from the company. They have inserted various errors into the Star Wars articles; and tell me that Star Wars is not a family film like Pirates of the Caribbean. I won't revert the family film category; however the censorship of the press release is a matter of defending Wikiquote's standards. CensoredScribe (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While I would not want to remove a quote simply because someone deemed it offensive, in this case, I believe the so-called "quote" is the product of a satirical joke on the website in which it appears - I do not for a second believe that a Disney rep uttered the words (and this becomes more obvious the more of the article one reads). I would remove the quote on the grounds that it is a hoax. And for what it's worth, I would not include the Star Wars films in the Family films category either. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes: this is obviously satire. The source is most definitely not "a press statement from the company" as asserted above. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
On categorization:  I think of "family film" as a marketing category that has practically no value for identifying the nature of the work, so I don't care. If it means anything it might be "suitable for young children without being too inane for adults". How well that describes the film in question may be open to debate, but I don't think it is relevant to compiling and presenting a compendium of quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
ADH has been a problematic guy in anything Star Wars as far as I can remember. Much like a certain admin in violating LOQ just because there's some notable quotes they think its worth putting in when the limits still apply.--Eaglestorm (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Eaglestorm, I do not think vague and nonspecific complaints at the Administrators' noticeboard, particularly allegations of administrator misconduct, are actionable. If you want a grievance to be considered seriously, you need to be specific. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh was I referring to you?!--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I would not have thought so, and I do not know which "certain admin" you were referring to. Posts on this noticeboard are addressed to all of the administrators as a group, including me. Hence I replied, noting that we can not act on vague and nonspecific accusations.

Making complaints about administrator conduct on the administrators' noticeboard is serious business. I have done it myself, and it is taken very seriously. Unless you are serious about backing it up, I encourage you to refrain from making disparaging remarks about anyone, anywhere. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't compute and even if I named that admin, you're gonna whiteknight for them when they violate LOQ for the sake of notability. Seems you're every bit defensive by reacting to it. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the quote, however CNN does have real tweets from Disney and Mark Hamill on the subject; I don't think either are relevant enough to include in the page for Return of the Jedi but might still work for the page on Star Wars in general as a reflection of the fandom. [1] CensoredScribe (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why you put in all those material from interviews. They're still quotes and potentially violate LOQ.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

ADH has made a lot of move requests on those films. Can anybody check this? --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Those seem related to name changes at Wikipedia, where the original names of the first three films and generally used names of the second three have been adopted. These have now all been moved to match their Wikipedia names. ~ Kalki·· 10:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Technical question re. what constitutes edit warring[edit]

A disagreement has arisen between Kalki and myself over repeatedly including one particular image with the Main Page QotD every single day. I asked Kalki to stop "branding Wikiquote in this way" pending consensus to do so. Discussion thus far has been minimal, and both of us have continued to add and remove the image ever since.[2][3][4]

Now then, quite apart from the question of whether it is a good idea to use the same image every day, I am unsure whether Wikiquote:Image use policy#Dispute resolution even applies to this situation, or whether the activity of the parties does or does not constitute "edit warring". I am asking here for uninvolved administrators' opinions about which of the following characterizations of the situation is correct:

  1. This is edit warring, in which two users are repeatedly adding and removing the same image from the same Main Page many times. Therefore, re-adding the image to the Main Page is subject to the image dispute resolution policy.
  2. This is not edit warring because, notwithstanding transclusion on the same target page, each QotD is a separate and distinct page. Therefore, adding the image to a new and different page every day is not subject to the image dispute resolution policy.

Of course, there is little precedent for enforcing the policy in question, so that aspect of this question may be moot. Nevertheless, clarity on the broader question about the technical meaning of "edit warring" per se in this context(singular or plural) will help me decide how to approach resolving the disagreement. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that this does constitute edit warring - and should be handled as such. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, if this is considered edit warring I will stop doing it. If the other party persists I will request the assistance of an uninvolved party. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
But to your point, the image should remain off the pages until there is discussion, per the Image use policy. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Why does the user want the image removed? What detrimental effect would including it have? – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the use of the symbol has been questioned as a rather blatant violation of the Image Use Policy (specifically where the image must have relevance with respect to a quote - and given that it has been used in relation to QOTD selections for a number of consecutive days, such relevance is not clear), as the policy states, it should not be placed again without discussion leading to consensus on its use. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for intervention in edit war[edit]

Even after being advised of the discussion above, User:Kalki has continued to re-add the monad image to the Main Page QotD again today at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/August 28, 2015. This time the HTML entity #10752 ("⨀") has been used instead of the file image:Monad.svg to achieve the same effect. Perhaps this is an attempt to obfuscate the situation or to evade the policy on image use by using a mathematical glyph that is not literally an image file, but the effect and the intent are clearly the same.

I am not going to continue edit warring by removing the glyph. Instead, I request that an uninvolved administrator remove it and intervene to stop this from continuing every day. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the symbol (rather than the prior image) still violates the spirit of the discussion here and have removed it. If the use of it is desired, please engage in constructive dialogue before using it again. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Why does the user want the image of symbol removed? – Illegitimate Barrister, 19:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the use of the symbol has been questioned as a rather blatant violation of the Image Use Policy (specifically where the image must have relevance with respect to a quote - and given that it has been used in relation to QOTD selections for a number of consecutive days, such relevance is not clear), as the policy states, it should not be placed again without discussion leading to consensus on its use. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Strongly agree with UDScott and Ningauble, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Very narrow POV zealotry on some articles recently[edit]

I just reverted major changes made to the Information article today, made by an anon IP. There have been similar alterations to several articles in recent days and weeks very much akin to those which had occurred in recent months, apparently by someone seeking to transform many articles on Wikiquote into advertisement and promotion of their particularly obtuse and asinine interpretations of some of the ideas of Terence McKenna. I don’t have any objections to his ideas being added, where appropriate — but object to making articles seem to endorse and promote some of the more immature, ignorant and confused theories which have developed around them. I have no time to deal further with this matter, as I must be leaving now, and am a bit rushed, but will probably be back within a few hours to deal with the problem a bit more. ~ Kalki·· 13:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kalki, I agree with your actions here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

Sorry for my absence - long absence (since 2011?). Thank you for all your works during these days and patience toward me inactive admin. Now I'm back. Let me talk about some personal, I'm now 47 and my doctor told I won't be fully recovered from my physical troubles. My youth has gone. Time hasn't stopped. Yet I dare say, "thou art beautiful". Wikiquote is here, you guys are around. I'm happy to see it. On my side, I don't promise you all my former high pitched activities, rather moderate one fitting to my age and circumstances. But anyway I'm happy to back editing. I hope you content that.

I'm now trying to catch up, but it seems to take a bit time more. I feel as if I were a newbie. There're lots I need to recall and learn newly. Any recommendations and suggestions where I should start and give a look are welcome. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk)

Welcome back Aphaia! ~ UDScott (talk) 13:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Welcome back! (It may seem like a long time to someone who is 47 years young, but from my "mature" perspective four or five years is only a brief interlude.)
Here are some things of interest that are new or changed since then:
  • Policy/guideline pages WQ:FC and WQ:IMAGE were adopted in 2012. (WQ:LOQ is still just a draft proposal since 2008.)
  • In other discussions, Further reading sections and Infobox templates have been deprecated as too "encyclopedic" for Wikiquote's purposes. Current discussion at WQ:VP#Vote on Main Page Image Policy appears to be settled, but has not been codified into policy.
  • The main section heading in articles is now usually "Quotes" instead of "Sourced", because contrasting "Unsourced" sections are not allowed.
  • Bureaucrats no longer rename user accounts on local wikis. Since user accounts are now unified across all WMF wikis, renaming and usurpation are handled by global functionaries.
  • The AbuseFilter tool (which is hard for non-experts to use) now has a global version (operated at Meta) that has been used very effectively to stop most spam bots.
Of course, there have been several changes in the administrators roster; and we have more than 25,000 articles now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your walm welcoming guys, and for information, Ningauble. I've read the formalized policy/guideline, happy to see our long term issues solved. The on-going discussion on VP looked so settled as to make me hesitate to give some comments. I think my own standing, keeping NPOV balance, specially in places more visible, is near to the consensus, but fine to have a room to give last minute comment. --Aphaia (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see you back, Aphaia, and thank you very much for your helpful comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson, most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Redcarpetpress (talk · contributions)[edit]

I have at this point put a temporary block on this user due to extensive vandalism, various clearly false and nonsensical accusations, and creation of attack pages against an editor in response to a prod notice being placed on page this user created. I must be leaving soon, and have not had time to examine or revert much of the damage to various pages with such nonsense, but will attempt to clear away a few more bits of the nonsense before leaving. ~ Kalki·· 12:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kalki:It may be of use to see this activity by same users at en.wikipedia, at LINK. -- Cirt (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

More attention appreciated at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson[edit]

More attention appreciated at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson, please.

  1. The deletion discussion at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jim Henson has open open for longer than one (1) month.
  2. Allixpeeke greatly helped to improve the sourcing on the page, and I've added a fully sourced About section.
  3. Every single quote on the page is now properly cited and sourced.
  4. Aphaia asked users who had previously commented to the page to consider changing their votes, due to the improvements, per DIFF.
  5. The only user who had previously commented "delete", other than the nominator himself, was Rubbish computer, who changed his vote to "Keep", per DIFF.

Summary: It appears that after one (1) month of time for discussion, and now unanimous consent for "Keep" (excluding the nominator who has seemingly not revisited the deletion discussion after the improvement efforts by Allixpeeke and myself) — could the discussion perhaps be closed as "Keep", at this point in time ?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite news[edit]

There is something missing in the current Template:Cite news template, that it doesn't give show a message to look at the talk page for more documentation. Could this be fixed? -- Mdd (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You can copy or move the usage notes from the talk page to the documentation page. Because the template has "<noinclude>{{Documentation}}</noinclude>" at the bottom, the "/doc" page will be displayed on the template page. See Wikipedia:Template documentation for an overview. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
My question is, can somebody fix this? -- Mdd (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The answer is yes: you can. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
With the answer the bug remains that the page shows links to the non-existing Template:Pp-template. -- Mdd (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
You'll be appreciated to introduce non-existing useful templates :) --Aphaia (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the stray Template:Pp-template problem for all pages that use {{Documentation}}. The latter, borrowed from en:WP, included code that requires a "protection banner" module that we haven't implemented here. The solution was to remove that code from "Documentation", which eliminated the references to "Pp-template". I left a note in the doc template and on its talk page to get the original code from its history if/when someone adds the protection-banner module. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please Nuke Special:Contributions/Lonna2675y[edit]

Spam attack. Eurodyne (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The account was already globally blocked when I noticed the activity, and I have now deleted all the spam pages which were produced here by it. ~ Kalki·· 06:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Understanding about sections and the crime genre.[edit]

I thought the about sections for Snow White is perfectly fine as those are quotes from relevant experts and no different than any other films about section. I'm also pretty sure a movie about a home break in counts as crime for Home Alone, and that Carmen Sandiego is also about crime as she's a thief being pursued by detectives. CensoredScribe (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(Welcome back, CensoredScribe) which article do you discuss on? I'm puzzled. --Aphaia (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Aphaia, I haven;t quite left yet but today I will, hopefully on my own accord. CensoredScribe (talk) 21:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
There is not enough crime in any of the Aladdin films to make any of them crime films, Home Alone is mainly about a boy who was left behind at home by accident, Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? is just a game show based on a computer game, and concerning Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, none of those quotes were in the movie. This user is just repeating the same trouble it got into in August. WikiLubber (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding the edit war over quotes about films at Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)WikiLubber is incorrect in insisting film articles should have only quotes from the film. However, I endorse removal of the particular quotes in question as material that lacks relevance to a compendium of quotations. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding categories added by User:CensoredScribe – This user has some serious misunderstandings about what categories signify and how they are used, and was topic banned from adding categories at Wikipedia before ultimately being completely banned from the site.[5]

    CensoredScribe's misunderstanding of relevance extends beyond inappropriate categorizations to posting off-topic quotations in theme articles. This user has operated at a remarkably high volume, even after announcing retirement from Wikiquote,[6] creating a huge burden for the community to clean up.[7]

    If we do not see immediate and substantial reform in this user's conduct then I would recommend User:CensoredScribe be banned from Wikiquote for disruption. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

    • So the dozen edits you Ninguable reverted the day before yesterday were huge and ban worthy? I thanked Ninguable for being a good editor, particularly for recognizing that locks are identifiable as tech, but not tech enough nor weapons like the mechanically simpler sword. Propaganda is an art movement as much as trans humanism, though not an art, Newspapers are not art for all though they often contain pictures so do many books which aren't labeled as art. The 2nd billed actor in home alone plays a criminal, where in the world is Carmen Sandiego isn't just a game show it is also a fox cartoon about detectives pursuing thieves. Aladdin and the King of Thieves kind of sounds like it is about thieves, sort of like that lengthily scene in the first Aladdin where he's singing about stealing to survive, I notice you aren't protesting Mulan being about war. The quotes on Snow White are no different than the other about sections for Star Trek I have made, about sections are less noticeable than the actual films and most people tend to avoid them because of that ambiguity; collecting interviews with the cast in one location is an excellent goal though I believe, which pools collected fan knowledge from interviews into one central location for all the popular franchises. At most I deserve a 3 day block given thse complaints regard my conduct made in the last 3 days, Ill even play along that the 10%bad edits I've made in the last 3 days warrants a month long block because I actually am retiring for the rest of the year do to school work concerns. Being angry that I didn't eave soon enough appears to be something most of my accusers end up doing, I had no idea it was that bothersome, perhaps you should stop "caring" quite so much and take a deep breath, or make it official in the rules that retired template can only be used when you actually ready to leave instead of getting ready to leave? CensoredScribe (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that most people hide their politics. CensoredScribe (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, my observations above are not about some dozen recent edits, nor about whatever your political ideas are. This is about the continuation at Wikiquote of disruptive activity, i.e. high volume of inappropriate content, for which you were banned at Wikipedia. Multiple editors have tried for months to work with you on the relevance of categories and quotations, and there are thousands of edits that need to be reviewed. Continuation of this activity in the last three days is only an indication that you are not listening. If you are able to reform by, e.g., either learning how genres are commonly defined and understood or else recognizing that you do not understand and refraining from fooling with them, then you are still welcome. Several users have succeeded with a second chance at Wikiquote, but carrying on with the same thing that got you banned elsewhere is wasting that chance. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Really, thousands? Is that something you are willing to standby; thousands of reverted edits? Because my entire edit war with Ryulong was less than 200, maybe 300 bad edits; that tells me you exaggerate by a factor of three and that neither of us is willing to count how many of my edits were reverted because that would take hours. How many edits do you think you have reverted, by now 2 dozen? You are abusing your clout here for no reason, I will post no more; my apologies for the 4 reversions because of that Doctor Who quote I wanted to use as a test, mind telling me what that quote is about, it uses life twice, just as wrong is used three times in the A Clockwork Orange quote you've been reverting. I think the Doctor Who quote is a bad quote and I apologize for every use, but that you are wrong about A Clock Work Orange and wrong and cure. Also my reasons for Propaganda and Advertisement are completely valid, those are art genres, few books are propaganda but there are many works of art termed that academically due to patronage and politics.
You are 100% wrong on Snow White, that section is no different than the notability of the ones created for Star Trek (TV, except Next Gen and V and VI for films) Starwars 1 and 3 and Indiana Jones 1 and 4 I've done that for, Hero's, Lost, 24, Battle Star Galactica, Babylon 5, Game of Thrones, Gargoyles, Sponge-Bob, Hulk, X-Men, Wonder Woman, Alien Versus Predator, Alien 2 and Sucker Punch. The only about sections for fiction I've seen prior to this were for Superman Neon Genesis Evangelion and the original Godzilla film. I have a limited experience with literature so I can't say what is the case with about sections there; however mostly I see about sections for historical figures. I dislike bragging, but I have a feeling I have made more about sections outside of people and history articles than anyone else at this point, please correct me if I am wrong so I can study the about sections of whoever else has written many of them. I appreciate being told areas of writing I'm bad at so that I can improve.
The things I said about the Star Trek films are quoted on memory alpha, notability means different things to different levels of nerd-dom and the Disney fan base cares just as much as the Star Trek fan base about the production details. I included quotes from the title character Snow White's main animator w:Grim Natwick and Disney art historian Carmenita Higginbotham; which should definitely be included, though I will argue Justice Scalia is right on quoting for 24 than France's most famous dominatrix is correct for Snow White as well, Catherine Robbe-Grillet has a wikipedia page; I hink she and Justice Anton Scalia are equally not hollywood experts but people of note. I would think that a quote from Robin William on Evangelion or Doctor Who may be appropriate for those pages. I generally try and avoid quotes from even notable critics like Roger Ebert or else every page would have him. When an entire organization condemns something I tend to include those, I would like to do something for the Catholic Churches highest level condemnation of Kevin Smith's Dogma, perhaps around Chrismas when I have time.
You could always try educating me and tell me why my about sections are bad and why you didn't notice the other about sections I have made and that no one else has had a problem with, because they are on topic, cool and useful. I am done editing main space for now, I'll try to check in everyday until this discussion closes but other than that I will be calling it quits for a while until I feel like categorizing cartoons and finishing the rest of the minor religious figures and moving onto the major religious figures. Other than that, my only real interest here now lies with about sections for films which Ninguable seems to only object to for one film but not the others. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
For the most part this has been an extremely nice wiki to contribute to even when my edits are reverted, like over on Catholithism. It's a chance to argue better, and seeing as I'm right about snow white and those other about sections I don't think I will experience any difficulties or present any to the community. Trust me I understand the importance of time spent reverting bad edits, hopefully I pass my classes, cause I've been a better editor than astudent this semester, but if not it's my own damn fault, likeit was ignoring the 7th block to warn me to stop making new categories on wikipedia. I do this because I think it's the right thing to do, and if it isn't than I don't want to do it. CensoredScribe (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Four brief comments:  1) I wrote "need to be reviewed", and I stand by the statement. I have only sampled a small fraction of your nearly four thousand edits, and a large proportion of them are "bad edits". Yes I didn't notice all of the bad edits, yet, because it will take days to review thousands of edits.  2) That Doctor Who quote you "wanted to use as a test" is called disrupting the project to make a point, which is grounds for banning.  3) Your arguments about categories are categorically wrong. E.g., the fact that art is used in advertisement and propaganda does not make advertising and propaganda art movements.  4) Your approach to what is relevant for a theme article reflects a similar misconception that if there is any connection at all then it must be a quote about the topic.

I would like to be able to offer better explanations for your education, but your experience at Wikipedia and your headstrong recklessness here do not give me much hope that you are willing and able to learn. Are you? ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

So now the game is to be brief? I wasn't making a point, stop assuming my intetions and listen to logic. 1) No one needs to be reviewed, because we are all constantly being reviewed; if there was an issue someone like BD2412 would have told me about it and I would have listened like I did on the formatting problems, I've already had plenty of oversight. If my edits to any 1 article are bad they get noticed by the people who watch that article. 2) I thought the Doctor Who quote would work for one of those subjects than realized it would not, that is not making a point, that is realizing a mistake. I am right about Clock Work Orange working on multiple levels though. 3) Which categories, be specific, you haven't reverted horror, military drama, sci-fi fantasy or those super hero movies I categorized. As for art, look up Diego Rivera and Orlan for up Diego Rivera and the numerous examples of propaganda art throughout history and more recently advertising and transhumanism like Orlan. These are art genres talked about in art history and art classes at universities and high schools. 4) Which theme other than the ones I admitted were off in retrospect for Doctor Who in the last 2 days? Name something we can all look, don't be vague.
The logical conclusion to the large number of fallacies you exhibit in your arguements is that of ideology hiding it'self as wikilawyering in fear of the invisible bonds that bind people ideologically, this is a most frivolrous case; give me Snow White propaganda and advertising and I will stop arguing with you, I am not a threat to this project, you are. I have to question only doing this for Snow White and the the collaboration between wiki lubber and Ninguable, just out of curiosity has there ever been an example of paid editing on this Wiki, Ryulong was caught paid editing for Gamergate. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You cite no examples making a poor argument. Which themes, the Doctor Who mistake I just made or something that's been here unquestioned for months? That quote says life twice but really isn't about anything other than Doctor Who, unlike many Doctor Who quotes about larger subjects. Wrong is the subject of the A Clockwork Orange quote, not violence or God, but those also work. I admit have been making some bad edits these last 2 days, though understandable ones. Nuclear bombs, bombs and locks are all the forms of science and technology I said they were. Digimon isn't fantasy like Tron and Wierd Science, even though it is the most fantasy esque sci-fi ever with computer data becoming tangible, which all makes the holodeck accidents look vaguely more hard sci-fi as hard light in contrast. Snow White isn't one of my mistakes and I am correct about the art movements of advertising and propaganda. It's a good idea for me to take a break though, regardless of how good a job I've been doing, because I've been doing this long enough and should take a break. 2 dozen about sections is a lot, I expect Snow White to be representative of all of them, so if that goes so should they all.
As a reminder, I am under no present sanctions and there's no more dialogue quotes. I shouldn't have to apologize for the French Proverb I added after saying I was done with main space, it was on topic and I haven't been sanctioned yet. Sorry for the retired template but every day this conversation continues is another day it isn't true, because oncea day, (but no more) I will be responding to this thread.I have proven myself and apologized for the very limited number of mistakes I have made, given the large number of edits I have made. I have no further arguements to make, and require the assistance of someone else in this conversation, as you should never be your own wikilawyer, just like in real life with real lawyers. CensoredScribe (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
CensoredScribe (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

CensoredScribe, I'm going to be honest with you. Right now, you need to stop wasting your time, and that of others, and focus on school. That's what's important. I will, however, leave you with a couple of thoughts: 1) This isn't Wikipedia – if we're lucky, we might have two or three volunteers reviewing the recent changes here on any given day. Yesterday alone you made over 200 edits – you can't expect us to check them all one by one (and we have better things to do than to be your permanent babysitter). So, if you're going to edit, you have to do it responsibly. 2) You don't need to be so confrontational. (What do you gain by calling Ningauble "a threat to this project", other than make yourself look foolish?)... Okay, good luck. ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right Daniel Tom, I had no idea the number of volunteers here or that it was 200 edits; I incorrectly assumed there were more people actively reviewing here than on Rational wiki because the Alexa traffic is higher, but that traffic is just for page views not editors and that makes sense because of the many popular series with pages. I'm doing myself and the community a disservice; I mean really at this point I should not make any typos, and should probably just wait to post about sections when I have multiple quotes all together instead of just one at a time, good to keep the number of revisions in the history pages low if I can, saves electricity on some level I'm sure.
This is free while my education isn't; I apologize for saying Wiki Lubber is a threat to the project for owning the Snow White article; Snow White Propaganda and Advertising. Here is why propaganda is an art movement or art; or something other than literature and semiotics. Most people would say Uncle Sam during word association; Uncle Sam is an illustration not a book or a formal argument or a theme; Propaganda is as common a term in art as beautiful and ugly, within the most highly esteemed academic genre of history painting, and advertisement is just corporate propaganda and self fashioning on the private level. Both are discussed extensively in academic art curriculum and should be included, and yeah having the most experience with about sections, the one made for Snow White is no different than the other 30; take that either way. I'll leave it up to you whether the dominatrix with a wikipedia page is noteworthy but the films lead character animator with a wiki page most certainly is; as much as Gene Roddenberry's secretary which anyone reverting my edits like Ninguable would have noted and undone. It seems weird Snow White started this; but I have to wonder whether this isn't about me not being "pure" enough good enough for Snow White; let's talk about that, what's wrong with the about section for Snow White? Forget everything else, why isn't the main animator describing the historical atmosphere in which the race for the first animated woman in a full length feature film important? Because Disney's animation history has some less than sunny parts that are extensively documented, the voice actress had an exclusivve contract but her hours weren;t nearly as rough as the animators. I suppose I would have gone there eventually, but I haven't quite got the references together yet, though it's perfectly worth mentioning, unlike on Wikipedia because it is quotation a historian of animation would mention, and by historian I mean anyone interested. CensoredScribe (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

CensoredScribe (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Ningauble was right. CensoredScribe keeps polluting more and more pages with wrong categories at an incredible rate. He really needs to be blocked at least until he agrees to follow the categories used by Wikipedia (which he currently refuses to do), otherwise he will simply keep on adding categories based on his own often idiotic understanding of films, or on what he reads in unreliable internet articles and forums. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Take a deep breath; DanielTom alright and ctually list concrete examples instead of being vague; it makes you sound more convincing. DanielTom means Category:Dragon films, Category:Elf films, Category:Dwarf films and Category:Fairy films. They might also meanCategory:Transhuamnism in media and the genre categories I added for comic books and video games which are accurate and the same as the ones for films. Are you aware of what, User:Allixpeeke has been doing? CensoredScribe (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Mate, you're not in a high school debate, you don't need to tell me to "Take a deep breath". Today alone you've already made over 125 edits, some of which I and others have already reverted (and the ones that weren't reverted probably no one has bothered to review). Just now you've added Category:Libertarianism in media to 7 different video games, based on a completely unreliable Internet article written by an unknown freelancer, when NOT EVEN ONE of the Wikipedia articles on any of those games even mentions "libertarian". (Bringing up User:Allixpeeke, or any other user, is just a variant of the Tu quoque fallacy, so don't bother.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment: checkuser investigation[edit]

(cf. WQ:VIP) Ralph Layton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) his edits are likely hoaxes and in regard of the correspondence w/ single-issue-interested anon and himself, I'd invite the community to consider a checkuser investigation on this account for searching other possible hoaxes under different usernames. Opinions? --Aphaia (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Without significant evidence of a broader pattern, I imagine the Stewards might decline searching for other possible hoaxes as a "fishing expedition". Keep your eyes open for similar activity. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a pattern. See the following accounts that were just blocked today:

It's pretty obvious to me that this guy is the same old "troll-vandal" who's been afflicting this wiki for years now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not analized this activity in detail (and I think there are multiple same old troll-vandals), but if it looks like the same person then by all means file a request at m:SRCU. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree those three accounts share patterns, but not sure Ralph Layton falls into this category. Checking those three is a considerable action, but it would be another investigation. --Aphaia (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Update: Request at: m:Steward_requests/Checkuser#Spy_Genius.40en.wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Result: All accounts are stale. We'll keep an eye on this and re-report at Meta if need be in the future. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another IP vandal[edit]

User is creating phony user pages and causing mischief. I request it be blocked (especially from editing its own talk page) infinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Make it 1 year not infinite because IPs shouldn't be blocked indefinitely so 1 or 2 years work. -- 05:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying us, Please consider to use WQ:VIP with {{vandal}} instead in the next time. (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) is now blocked. --Aphaia (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be subtle vandalism and false extensions of quotes going on with several accounts just now, but I cannot stick around and must be leaving for at least a few hours. I had meant to do a bit more here already, but just checked in, and must be leaving, and am not sure when I will be back. ~ Kalki·· 14:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations at Bram van Velde. Feedback requested[edit]

In the latest expansion of the Bram van Velde lemma in two sections copyright violations were suspected. I noticed

  1. A first section contained 50 quotes (in total about 100 lines of text) from 16 pages of text of the original.
  2. A second section contained 29 quotes (about 90 lines of text) from 16 pages of text of the original.

The Wikiquote:Limits on quotations prescribes two quidelines:

  • Spoken-word (speeches, standup comedy, interviews, etc.) Five quotes maximum for any work not in the public domain.
  • Books A recommended maximum of five lines of prose or eight lines of poetry for every ten pages of a book not in the public domain, or

Now I trimmed back both sections:

  1. First section was trimmed back to 10 short quotes (in total about 10 lines)
  2. Second section was trimmed back to 8 longer quotes (in total about 25 lines)

Now I would like to ask feedback on this administrative action. -- Mdd (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not characterize this as an administrative action, but an editorial one. It can be discussed by regular contributors on the article talk page unless normal discussion has broken down. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Seconded. --Aphaia (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I restarted this discussion at the article talk page (here), and comments from all users are welcome. -- Mdd (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Serial account creation[edit]

While there is no edit from those accounts, please be vigilant.--Aphaia (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

           09:16 . . User account ThanduxoloKennethTwani4092 (Talk | contribs | block) was created ‎
        09:13 . . User account ThanduxoloKennethTwani4091 (Talk | contribs | block) was created ‎
        08:54 . . User account ThanduxoloKennethTwani4084 (Talk | contribs | block) was created ‎
        08:47 . . User account ThanduxoloKennethTwani4082 (Talk | contribs | block) was created ‎
        08:43 . . User account ThanduxoloKennethTwani4080 (Talk | contribs | block) was created ‎

There are more than fifty accounts in this series created in recent weeks. None have made any edits. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

for slightly differing lists of similar accounts. Must be some kid with nothing better to do than try to circumvent the account creation IP cap. He has some minor IP mobility, but seems to be hitting the six accounts per 24h limit, as he should. The count of attached wikis varies between 4-15 typically, compare for example 5002 and 5003. jni (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for AWB[edit]

Hello everybody. I have read Wikiquote:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, am familiar with Wikiquote's policies and would like to request access to AutoWikiBrowser for typo fixing: this is an activity for which I use AWB to make edits within Wikipedia policy at enwiki. If I am granted this, I will probably need instructions as to how to use this on a different wiki to enwiki. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Granted. It's fairly simple - just go to the [Options] menu, pick [Preferences] (first tab there), then pick the [Site] tab and change from Wikipedia to Wikiquote. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@BD2412: Thanks! --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:ChicagoTeddyBears106[edit]

Given what this user wrote for their unblock request, talk page access will probably need to be revoked. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Friends![edit]

Evening gentlemen, I come as a new editor fresh from my former wiki, it was pretty much the cat version of wikipedia but was getting in disputes over there so I decided to switch over to the old quoter, cause yew know I like my quotes. Any categories that need improvement?? Leave a comment :))) WazzawazzawazRedux (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This remark was made by a long-term vandal, familiar to some of us long-term editors, whose account has now been blocked here and globally. ~ Kalki·· 23:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Are we sure about that kalki? Dont you know I've made redundent systems by now? -waz
The account was blocked. I have no doubt that pathologically time-wasting morons addicted to finding ways to disrupt the activities of others can continue to waste the times of their own lives and those of others, but that hardly makes such people impressive as being anything but twerps. ~ Kalki·· 23:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
You dont want this fight kaliki. im more refined and mature now. i will wait and watch and script and attack to autorun while admins sleepp. for the lords sake of the project please surrender i dont want to have to do this i love wikiquote. wazzawazzawaz will rise from the ashes after a decade with a vengence so large your lifes work will be destroyed!! parish not surrender now -Waz
You apparently have very little idea how pathetically nonsensical such tripe seems to most people. Find something to do with your life beyond being a pathetic disruptor of the lives of others. ~ Kalki·· 23:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for this prophylaxis, Kalki. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC).

One less vandal to worry about! – Illegitimate Barrister, 06:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Fullstop Cop[edit]

Fullstop Cop (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) seems to be another sock puppet of a rather persistent vandal. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done, blocked indef by admin. -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion problems[edit]

There currently seems to be some kind of transclusion problems with the main page and other pages using the QOTD template at Template:Quote of the day— and I am having difficulty understanding why this has suddenly occurred or how to fix it. I initially thought I might have formatted the current QOTD wrong — but it is showing up on all page purges I do on previous use of the QOTD template. Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 2016 is showing an aberration of a demand for a non-included "Wikiquote:Quote of the day/February 2016/doc" — and a similarly on the main page and others, there is a warning:

If you are viewing this page, you may not be aware of Wikipedia's template documentation pattern. Template documentation subpage should be prefixed by the name of the template. Create the main page for your template on page: Template:TemplateNameMain Page.
bad good
Template:/doc Template:Tl/doc
Template:/doc Template:Non-free media/doc
Template:/doc Template:ArticleHistory/doc
Thank you.

I have no idea why this problem has suddenly arisen. ~ Kalki·· 00:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is definitely a major new software problem: I just did a page purge for the February 5 page, and a previously well formatted page was ravaged — as I expect would be the case for any new rendering of the MANY pages using the QOTD template. ~ Kalki·· 00:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem seems to be going away now, as suddenly as it began, so I am assuming someone is addressing it. ~ Kalki·· 01:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I also see this problem. I tweaked Template:Quote of the day to address a potential problem (something that did not cause trouble previously but may not conform to some recent software change) and it appears to fix the pages I tested. I hope it is okay now. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Your tweak will probably address any similar problems in the future, as it seems to be along the lines of what the warnings were indicating, while the problem was active. ~ Kalki·· 02:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Vandalism only account ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This vandal has now been permanently blocked. ~ Kalki·· 23:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. These guys don't let up. – Illegitimate Barrister, 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

X-MEN articles LOQ[edit]

20spokesperson (talk · contributions) has been hellbent these past several days on reverting trims to Days of Future Past and First Class. Such editing activity's been evident from him for months now as IPs...87Stone (talk · contributions) could well be a sock because that user primarily works on those articles, those of other X-men films or any horror material. He repeatedly fails to understand that what he's doing is not in line with LOQ protocols and his edit summaries seem very asinine and childish. I think this guy should be brought to heel because he really doesn't get it. --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Just to give us some time to sort this out, I have locked both pages in their current state. BD2412 T 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this has gone on long enough. Miszatomic deleted a talk message from 87Stone that's apparently the first movement from that account in nearly ten days. This move, plus the IPs that have been pinpointed to a city in Southeast Asia, are indications of a vandalism-only account and should be blocked along with 20spokesperson. The talk message should be hidden as well. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This has been done. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Update: he's been on the prowl and has sent me more hate mail through another IP whose editing history also includes articles of concern. Horror films are not my forte, but if anybody could heavily cull the bloats he's done, it'll be worth it bringing him to heel. To be honest, its outright stupidity to declare what WP states as ownership of articles in an article you create and tell off people against editing stuff they created. I warned you about this 20spokesperson and you just had to be a bigger asshole than I'd give you credit for. Wave the white flag now, you're dead, kid.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, the user has been blocked. From what I've understand is that appearantly 20spokeperson has been sending hate mail through Special:EmailUser.. in that case, the ability to email should be removed as well. Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock[edit]

As I'm not an administrator, can someone proceed to take care of these unblocks to reduce useless clutter? Thanks! ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • The clutter is not noticeable except by people actively looking for it.--Abramsky (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for impartial review[edit]

Could someone please take a look at Criminal Minds for the recent content dispute I have had with another user. While I hate to get into such edit wars (and usually avoid them completely), I now find myself in one. I've tried to engage in a discussion with the other user (see User talk:Njorent) without any response. My only main points are that the character links (that I spent a lot of time adding to the first two seasons, and had planned to add for the rest) should remain and that if there are more than the allotted 5 quotes per episode that are memorable, the ones where a character is quoting a famous person should be sacrificed (some might even say that these should be removed altogether as not original to the TV show itself) versus quotes actually written by the shows writers. In any case, I will step back for now and await someone else taking a look. Thanks! ~ UDScott (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@UDScott: Blocked the user and left a note on their user talk page. -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)



Just a note that I used my steward rights to stop this vandal earlier today, and reverting some of the pagemove vandalism he did. Please modify any actions I have taken accordingly.

Thanks, Ajraddatz (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Good riddance to the slimebag. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Back as Aardvaarks on fire yo (talk · contributions). --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Blocked user CensoredScribe ‎[edit]

Blocked double time from last block by Kalki (talk · contributions).

For same repeated behavior as from prior block by Kalki (talk · contributions), in addition to addition of irrelevant quotes, and disruption of the site.

I see prior discussion at:

  1. Wikiquote:Village_pump#Ban_proposal:_CensoredScribe
  2. Wikiquote:Village_pump#Block_of_1_month_proposed_by_Kalki
  3. Wikiquote:Village_pump#CensoredScribe_and_bare_URLs
  4. Wikiquote:Village_pump#CensoredScribe_still_working_diligently_to_bring_Wikiquote.27s_standards_down

Note: Any other admin please feel free to change or modify my block here, no objections.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

  • I endorse this block. If the disruptive editing resumes after the block expires, as I expect it will, then I will support a motion to ban CensoredScribe from Wikiquote entirely. I felt that the previous ban proposal was premature because at the time this user had not yet been blocked here (banning should not be the first resort). ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I think a reasonable alternative to a site ban would be a probationary status wherein CensoredScribe must submit all proposed additions (properly formatted and fully cited) for some level of community approval before they can be added to a page. BD2412 T 11:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • That sounds reasonable, in theory, but I fear that this user still does not even understand what is wrong with most of the additions. We can certainly try it, but I have little expectation that useful content will be forthcoming. ~ UDScott (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

CensoredScribe created Democratic Republic of the Congo today with the poor quality (and hardly notable or memorable) quote:

  • "Since the pull out of the electronics companies there has been a tremendous surge by the Congolese government and local mining companies seeking an alternative market with the Chinese.
  • It is still at an early stage simply because most of the mines are in very remote areas, and since we still have rogue armed groups here and there, you never know. But also more significantly, the fact that Congo is lacking communications infrastructure in terms of roads, so we need to go step by step.

(The formatting is equally terrible.) And he's still adding irrelevant quotes to articles. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe this user CensoredScribe should be banned from the Wikiquote project. See this edit made while suspended: IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe it odd I haven't received a thank you from the sockpuppet and utterer of the paraphrased phrase, "don't say wierd because it's homophobic" Peter1c for bible and homosexuality related articles, nor a detailed explanation of what I did wrong from Daniel Tom who normally barks, url, source, title, date; which I've been abiding by along with the explanation as to the articles awards that made it quotable. Ok, I believe you that my quote was badly formatted because the date wasn't actually listed and no one here uses aces dates in place of publication dates. Provide URL to errors or STFU!' Feel free to add your better quote on the Democratic Republic of Congo, or provide constructive criticism like you were taught was more polite and more productive in grade school. I assume accusing someone of socking is acceptable seeing as check user doesn't actually reveal much of anything; at least that's what I've gathered from my fallacious and dare I say libelous wikipedia sockpuppet investigations since joining here. CensoredScribe (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, it looks like Wikiquote admins will let CensoredScribe destroy another thousand articles before finally blocking him again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


Preserving promotional materials (cross-wiki abuse)[edit]

In recent months there have been several cases of users who created inappropriate articles at Wikipedia, consisting of résumés, spammy screeds, or other self-promotional materials, who were indefinitely blocked at Wikipedia for doing it repeatedly, and who thereupon proceeded to carry on the same activity here at Wikiquote. Thus far this is an old story, but there is a new wrinkle that I would like to call to the attention of Wikiquote's administrators.

In the past this sort of inappropriate content was routinely deleted, but recently an administrator (Kalki) has been preserving these materials by moving them to user pages, as evidenced in these three examples: Anonymous Organization, Allwyn Immanuel, and Arshabha arya.

The same administrator even declined an explicit request to delete this sort of material, on the grounds that the user had blundered "... but not necessarily more intolerably than the blunders of other neophytes ...". I want to emphasize that these are not innocent newbies. These users were repeatedly warned and ultimately blocked at Wikipedia as clearly not here [there] to build an encyclopedia. Only then, in full knowledge that what they were doing was unacceptable, or in complete disregard of the experience, did they come to Wikiquote to carry on the same activity where they were not yet blocked. (Most of these accounts have subsequently been globally locked for cross-wiki abuse, and the latest one may well also become locked for posting the same thing across multiple wikis.)

Now therefore I submit the general question to Wikiquote's administrators:  Should we be preserving and archiving inappropriate articles that were expunged from Wikipedia by moving them to Wikiquote user pages, or is it the proper role of Wikiquote administrators to speedily delete article submissions that are wholly inappropriate? ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete them all. We do ourselves no favors by serving as a webhost for promotional materials, particularly those relating to users who contribute nothing other than self-promotion. BD2412 T 18:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I fully agree. We should not serve as a landing spot for such content. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikiquote cannot serve as a web host. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete such pages as described. I certainly have no objections to such pages being deleted, but have some objections to the skewed presentations about the recent incidents which have been crafted here. This is indeed "an old story", but you seem to be implying that a "new wrinkle" involves some kind of extreme alteration of policies, or perhaps even an actual drive on my part to initiate one "promoting" such mere "vanity pages" of individuals promoting various agenda, such as have long been discouraged and rejected. The very heading of this section seems to predicate an accusation that I am in some way intent on "Preserving promotional materials (cross-wiki abuse)". I believe that in the stated incidents, I was merely being cautiously and to some extent appropriately civil and polite to new editors here whose activities elsewhere I had little time or inclination to investigate to any extensive degree, beyond perhaps sometimes checking that they were not outright vandals or spammers. Such cautious forbearance, even when dealing with those who clearly lack it, was once far more common among admins on the Wikimedia wikis than in recent years, for various understandable or sometimes very poorly understood reasons.
    The ridiculous excesses of various idiots who seek to glorify themselves in various ways or promote forms of self-aggrandizement of their particular personalities or personal inclinations is something I believe most people have learned to recognize as an all too common personality flaw among many people, which is hardly a new situation, and hardly one that I am willing to welcome or accommodate more than I am willing to tactfully confront. I believe that it has not been an extremely uncommon thing to tolerate many of the subtle and overt forms of such vanity and vain presumptions and vain efforts to various degrees — especially where there is little or no sign of persistent disruption in such efforts. I confess that I actually tend to usually pay very little attention to such inclinations if they are not overtly malicious or mendacious — and in most such incidents swiftly turn my focus to other matters of greater general significance, rather than fixating upon them. There are a few persistent problems with some editors which I believe provide much greater reason for general and persistent concern, but presently lacking both time and inclination to present some clear rationales for dealing with them effectively, I continue to simply observe various aspects of them, and consider various options for eventually responding more overtly.
    I observed this section yesterday, when briefly checking in, had to leave before responding, and once again have only a brief time here to make responses, after deleting a bit more of the spambot creations, and a page Mateo Testa created by Gcapernaum (talk · contributions) which clearly fell into this sort of category. In moving one of these pages out of article space yesterday morning, to the user's user page — as has occasionally been done for years, in my rush to attending to deleting a few nonsense pages before leaving, initially, I inadvertently forgot to UNCHECK the box to leave a redirect behind in article space, but very soon after deleted that page, within a very short time. I repeat that I certainly have no significant objections to such pages being deleted, especially in the common situations where they remain the primary or sole "contributions" of such editors. I will also assert that for many years, tolerating or confronting such incidents to varying degrees, when they are not overt commercial spam, has actually occurred many times without very major contentions about the matter, and I believe making a bigger deal than normal about occasionally encountering such incidents in recent months is far more of a "new wrinkle" to the situation than anything else of which I am aware. ~ Kalki·· 11:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC) + tweaks
I just now moved a similar page out of article space onto the user page of Ericmichaelleventhal (talk · contributions). I have posted a notice of this action here, for review of others. Arguably the subject of the page might meet perhaps meet notability requirements as a quoted author, but as it currently seems to have been a creation of that author, such a page is of course far more problematic.
I will again note that it is hardly an entirely "new" procedure to do such things as moving pages or material created in "article" space to "User pages", as for some years now, this has occasionally been done, and a template has existed since 2007 and has been widely used which reads:
Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field. Within bounds of Wikimedia policy, registered users can put quotes of themselves or people they know on their user pages. For a quick overview of what Wikiquote is, read Wikiquote:Wikiquote, and also What Wikiquote is not for a list of common activities that Wikiquote does not support.
It might perhaps be just a coincidental anomaly, but having 2 efforts to create "promotional pages" in article space on the project in the very brief time since the issue of such pages was somewhat more prominently publicized on this page in recent days is actually quite an upsurge in such efforts at promotion — a more normal pace might be one or two a month, if that. There are all manner of subtle or overt means by which people engaged in normal activities on wiki projects can be disrupted and distracted from the primary purposes of the wiki, and it is often frustrating and usually lamentable when this occurs, from whatever motives it is done. As I stated, I am making brief note of the recent move I made for review here, able and willing to accept community consensus on any particular applications of such transfer of material from inappropriate placement in "article space", and once again, must be preparing to leave. ~ Kalki·· 12:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC) + tweak
I have reviewed this action, and consider it a particularly heinous example of a self-promoting, self-published writer whose sole activity here is self-quoting with spam links to a page hawking his book and to a commercial site offering such dubious services as ghostwriting college application essays (hardly the hallmark of an arguably notable writer).

There are all manner of subtle or overt means by which people can exploit open hosting sites for self promotion. Self-quoting at places like Goodreads (as this person has done) is a recommended publicity technique for writers who eschew, or are eschewed by, the publishing industry, because any number of "famous quotation" sites will spread them around when their robots crawl the interestnet. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete and if necessary block the user (probably only after repeated attempts to create such pages).--Abramsky (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Village Pump closed to newcomers[edit]

The heading above may appear shocking to some, but I use it as a case in point to draw attention to a broader issue about use of this admin tool.

In this case, the Village Pump was semiprotected indefinitely yesterday, preventing unregistered and newly registered users from raising questions or participating in discussions. I think it is a very bad idea to bar newcomers from using our main discussion board – we should make every effort to keep the front door open. While it does receive a significant amount of vandalism, I think it is well worth the effort for administrators and other regular users to watchlist the page and respond promptly to incidents as they occur rather than just closing it to all newcomers.

I think it is so important to make this page available to all comers that it should only be semiprotected in extraordinary circumstances for a very brief time when it is subject to an intensive attack using multiple IPs/accounts at the same time, in a manner that cannot be dealt with by other means.

Note also that the Village Pump Talk page was also semiprotected indefinitely yesterday after one post from an IP (subsequently range-blocked globally for a week), even though it has been nearly a year since an inappropriate edit was last reverted on this page and it had not previously been vandalized since 2012. I think this action was beyond the pale.

More broadly, I have noticed an ever increasing number of pages being indefinitely semiprotected as a first resort, rather than blocking individuals or using brief protection during periods of disruption. Although I hold the personal view that it would be a good idea to require all editors to be registered, this is not Wikiquote's policy. As long as it is our policy that anyone can edit without registering an account, preventing unregistered or newly registered users from editing a page should be done with restraint, when other measures fail and as briefly as necessary, or when there is high risk of severe impact (as with widely used templates and the highly visible Main Page).

What do the rest of the administrators think is our best practice for the page protection tools? ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both your points: I would be careful with using protection on the VP (and its Talk page) and I agree that indefinite protection of pages is more a last resort than a first step. I don't mind protection during obvious edit wars or periods of vandalism, but these periods should not be of indefinite duration. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protection has been lifted. I would just point out that the admin who semi-protected VP (for a week) is both very active in reverting and blocking vandals and very receptive and responsive to queries (for instance, just now when I asked them to remove the semi-protection, they did so 3 minutes later) – as such, they are most valuable to Wikiquote, and should be treated with respect. (I could say more, but para bom entendedor, meia palavra basta.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

No Gun Ri[edit]

We seem to be at a bit of an impasse. Admittedly, I wouldn't post this on the ANI for Wikipedia, but this seems to be a little less fast paced.

In a nutshell, myself and others had been working on the No Gun Ri Massacre article on Wikipedia (incidentally, a GA as of Feb), and had made a corresponding Wikiquote page. One of the persons on the article was a journalist involved in the original investigation, and was producing a ton of sources and quotes, way more than was appropriate for the article. Thus the Wikiquote. It was fine material, but it was more than an encyclopedia article could handle.

I logged back onto to WQ as I'm working toward collecting quotes for another page, and it seems Illegitimate Barrister has taken it upon themselves to blank the NGR page, and incorporate the quotes into the page on Korea. I undid and attempted to address on talk, but their response was simply that the quotes were already on the Korea page, and they reblanked.

As it happens, the quotes would not already be on the Korea page had this user not added them themselves. I personally feel the addition was without context and in generally poor taste, but the Korea page is not my baby, and I have no dog in that fight.

At any rate, it's the kind of circular logic that I hesitate to simply r/v because it seems like an obvious invitation to an edit war. I only dabble in Wikimedia and Wikiquote, but there doesn't seem to have been any analogue to request for merger in this case. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I realize this person is an admin, which is part of why I'm here. Also there is apparently no WQ:RfC, also why I'm here. And there is apparently zero guidance on when to use redirects on WQ, but it seems unlikely someone would search for No Gun Ri, when they really intend to find quotes on the Korean war generally. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this article on the No Gun Ri Massacre should not have been eliminated, and have restored it. It needs some minor formatting work on the quotes, which I might do within a day or so, if no one else does. Some of the quotes that were transferred to the Korean War page might be retained there if they are clearly relevant to that page, but some of them, without context, don’t seem clearly relevant there. ~ Kalki·· 22:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Would appreciate help on the formatting. I'm admittedly unfamiliar. I haven't found clear guidance...the MOS here seems to be mostly about general Wiki things and not WQ specifically. I could use the NGR page as guidance in the page I intend to create for Scranton General Strike, probably some time in the next month. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

ChanelQueens and Xmen[edit]

we got another problem with stuff from Xmen articles for the first time since 20spokesperson. ChanelQueens (talk · contributions) has been playing excuses about adding quotes and saying "it's not that bad." He's no different an idiot like that sockpuppet.--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I did make the changes, I gave him reason and disagreed. we have started an edit war. He didn't like my changes. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I was only new here and my account is different. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I was only trying to help but Eaglestorm declined all my edits It's not always him/her to do it. Wiki editors should agree to contribute each other, not an edit war, I din't use any account i am not 20spokesperson i'm only new here. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You can deny all you want, but the articles from that franchise have gone through so much because of people like you who think setting up a new account makes them they can be the boss and change to what they desire. If you don't like the way it is, there's LOTS MORE film articles you can work on. Start there, hein?--Eaglestorm (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not like anybody. Everybody makes mistakes so I do something to fix it right. Both of us have started a war. We both disagree in our edits.ChanelQueens (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I never committed sock puppetry I didn't use any accounts. We have argued about our edits we made he didn't like it. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand the law of loq trimming. He didn't like my edits. We want contribution and agreement in our edits. So it would be kind of you to agree in our edits. ChanelQueens (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Result:

  1. User:ChanelQueens is blocked for abusing multiple accounts, along with a sleeper and IP range per m:Steward requests/Checkuser#ChanelQueens@en.wikiquote.
  2. User:Eaglestorm is admonished to be scrupulous about civility, lest the same thing happen here as at Wikipedia.

~ Ningauble (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

And I might add, Eaglestorm has been blocked twice already here for lacking civility (see here and here) ~ UDScott (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
And what you think is lacking civility is actually saying things as they really are. no sugarcoats. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
You could easily say things as they are without resorting to calling someone names and making disparaging remarks - that's the point that you seem to be incapable of grasping. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I can't even believe you had to bring up something that was practically unwarranted and nothing more than gangups that shouldve netted a topic ban at best but certain people had to take shit further. Even more when one of those people behind that is even here. Sige sa inyo na How I met Your Mother, mga gago. Oh and as for 20spokespersonwhoeverthehellyouare, nice one trying to get past me. My suspicions were right. Don;t do this again. JUST STOP. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandal[edit] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This IP has been globally range-blocked by a steward. ~ Ningauble (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)