Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

Community portal Welcome

Reference desk Request an article

Village pump Archives

Administrators' noticeboard Report vandalism • Votes for deletion

Archives

2005 2006 2007: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2008: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2009: Jan–May • June–Dec 2010: Jan–Feb • Mar–June • July–Dec 2011: Jan–May • June–Dec 2012: Jan–May • June–Dec 2013: Jan–May • June–Dec 2014: Jan–May • June–Dec 2015: Jan–Apr • May–Aug • Sep–Dec 2016: Jan–May • June–Dec 2017 2018: Jan–May • June–Dec 2019 2020: Jan–May • June–Nov 2021 2022 2023: Jan–May• June–Nov 2024 2025: Early 2025

This is a messageboard for all administrators.

Instructions

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 or requests for a mediation between another editor and you — we aren't referees. 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:

• Wikiquote:Protected titles
• Wikiquote:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage
• MediaWiki:Bad image list
• MediaWiki:Sitenotice
• MediaWiki:Sitenotice id when you update MediaWiki:Sitenotice, id num needs also to be incrementally grown
• MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist For global blacklisting, go to m:Talk:Spam blacklist instead.
• MediaWiki:Titleblacklist (upper compatible w/ MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist)

See also:

• Blocking policy
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block log
• Wikiquote:Protection policy (draft)
• Protection log

Bureaucrat tasks:

Bots

• Wikiquote:Bots
• Bot status log

Promotion

• Wikiquote:Requests for adminship
• User rights log

Tools:

• Linksearch
• crosswiki contrib search
• SUL account status

Discussions

Personal attack

I don't like being called a white supremacist motivated by racism. See Village pump#Massive pattern of racist motivated edits to United States. Ficaia (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like we have multiple threads on the same topic, so let's please keep conversation at the above thread, where multiple admins have already chimed in. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the repeated PA being directed at Ficaia deserves a clear admin response. The massive walls of text being created by Peter1c have provided an excellent smoke cloud preventing any focused discussion of his/her repeated breaches of important policies that we need to defend. But I am baffled what we could/should do. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

HouseOfChange The massive walls of text you refer to and describe incorrectly as a smoke cloud in fact provide the evidence that changes to United States exhibit a clear racist pattern that is identifiable using methods for identifying such patterns that I have learned at Penn State and University of Chicago. I DID NOT in fact accuse Ficaia of being racist in the original post on this topic. I merely described all the evidence pointing toward a racist pattern in the edits. Then Ficaia denied this in one sentence, providing no argument or evidence, continuing their edit warring pattern while refusing to contribute more than one liner denials to the discussion to resolve the issue, and escalated the conflict by suggesting I should be banned. The continued edit warring after I had officially raised the topic on Village Pump is contrary to WQ policy and made me feel personally attacked. If you want, I can go into more detail on the reasons I feel personally attacked as well, but that seems to be beside the point. I suggest we focus on adjudicating the original issue of mass deletions and politically motivated edits. Then we can go into the feelings aroused, which I agree should be discussed. Without adjudicating the original issue, the question of who feels hurt will be hard to discuss intelligently. I agree with Justin that it probably makes sense to continue the discussion at the Village Pump, where I have presented relevant evidence and discussed the gaslighting tactics that are being used to accuse the person pointing out the problem of being the problem. Switching venues seems like yet another gaslighting tactic to keep eyes off original evidence for the original problem. This is classic gaslighting playbook: first provoke a reaction with edit warring, escalation of conflict and other violations of policy, then say "look at how they reacted" to make the person raising the problem into the problem and distract from the original issue. Peter1c (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

So Peter1c denies having done anything wrong aside from maybe some "feelings". My "feeling" is that WQ policies are important. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:HouseOfChange. I would like to respond to your concerns and address them, but these one liner accusations fail to provide the necessary detail I need to respond adequately. You just keep escalating to "Peter should be banned" without letting Peter know how he can improve. I apologize that my criticism of these edits came across as personal animosity rather than a critical review. That was not my intention. My original review was done according to the academic standards I have learned at Penn State and University of Chicago. Many papers written in this style have received As. I was not intending to make any imputations about the person. I had no animosity in advance of seeing this edit. I was only describing the pattern of edits. I apologize if there was any misunderstanding on this.

Edits are going to be reviewed by other editors. That is part of the social universe of Wikipedia. Ficaia seems to be in denial of this basic fact and imagines entire articles can be deleted with no discussion? His deletions got a bad review, and now I stand accused of personal animosity? There was no animosity. I did my best to do an objective review. My opinion as an experienced wikiquote editor and adult education researcher is that this demolition and reconstruction of the United States article is at best a failure, and at worst an attempt to sabotage this adult education community. More than 97% of the original article was deleted in the first attack.

I have already explained the situation. I began by describing and documenting in detail a clear pattern of racist motivated edits. This kind of analysis is what I am trained to do. I documented the situation clearly. Ficaia's immediate reply to my detailed evidence was a one liner, accusing me of calling him a racist (unfounded accusation) and stating that therefore he would not reply (refusal to discuss). Then, apparently imagining a one liner was a sufficient contribution to the discussion, Ficaia reverted my edit.

In one of the few replies of more than one line, Ficaia states, "I haven't removed anything because of what it was about; I've removed it because it was unquotable/hasn't been quoted anywhere before." I did a simple google check, and I found many of the removed quotes are in fact widely quoted. So now I think there appears to be a serious problem of contempt for the Wikiquote editor community demonstrated by lying to us about editing methods. Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part. I have no intention to escalate this further. I would like to reach a resolution.

I have tried to document my issues with the revision carefully, but it seems all my detailed efforts are in vain because to you this is a "wall of text" that you refuse to engage with. Isn't this the definition of refusal to discuss?

I have de-escalated at every opportunity. I have reduced my charges from "racist motivated edits" to "politically motivated edits" even though I have sufficient evidence to prove the original charge. But the countersuit against me continues to escalate, showing that it is intended only to intimidate editors from standing up to demolition of articles we have built up over decades.

Ficaia's one-liner accusation has not provided any arguments or evidence that I have personal animosity. I do not have any personal animosity. I am very eager to reach a mutually agreeable settlement on this matter. I have de-escalated this conflict at every opportunity. Frankly I am overflowing with good faith and Ficaia is taking unfair advantage of that.

I happen to be the reviewer bringing a problematic pattern of mass deletions observed by other editors to the attention of the community. My impression is that Ficaia seems to be counterattacking me to intimidate editors from reviewing contributions. I have de-escalated at every opportunity.

I respect Justin's suggestion to move the discussion to the original thread, but I also feel that these kind of false accusations call for some response. These unprovoked escalations are intended to silence critical discussion and should not go unchallenged.

I encourage Ficaia and HouseOfChange to please join the discussion of how this issue should be settled rather than trying to silence critics. The solution proposed by multiple editors is to merge the new contributions into the original article and then proceed from there. We can discuss what needs to be deleted quote by quote.

Here are some relevant Wikipedia policies to keep in mind to avoid future disputes:

• Be helpful: explain your changes. When you edit an article, the more radical or controversial the change, the greater the need to explain it. Be sure to leave a comment about why you made the change. Try to use an appropriate edit summary. For larger or more significant changes, the edit summary may not give you enough space to fully explain the edit; in this case, you may leave a note on the article's talk page as well. Remember too that notes on the talk page are more visible, make misunderstandings less likely, and encourage discussion rather than edit warring.

• w:Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing

• Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. An edit that one editor thinks is minor or clearly warranted might be seen as major or unwarranted by others. If you choose to be bold, provide the rationale for any change in the edit summary or on the article talk page. If your change is lengthy or complex, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.

• w:Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing

I see Ficaia created a draft as a subheading of Talk:United States on November 18, 2024 so clearly some effort was made to comply with this policy. I'm not sure why this approach was not continued.

• Do not be upset if your bold edits get reverted.

• w:Wikipedia:Be_bold

P.S. Yes, as you said, my feelings were wrong. I became angry when I saw the mass deletion. I became angry with edit warring and refusal to discuss. My anger is wrong and it should not have happened. I apologize for that. I hope everyone will see my words of anger are more than outweighed by efforts toward reconciliation. These mass deletions are pushing the limits of good faith by covertly deleting content this community has built up over decades. The conflict is only exacerbated by counterattacking the messenger and escalating the conflict rather than engaging in good faith discussion. I have repeated so many times, I never intended to make any ontological attacks by designating anyone as a racist. I am reviewing edits, doing my duty as a member of the Wikiquote community as I perceive it. My intention is that Wikiquote editors can be an adult learning community and learn from one another in good faith. I perceive mass deletions with no notice as sabotage of this community. These actions need to be discussed. I don't think the intimidation tactics used to silence discussion should go unchallenged.

Peter1c (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not asking for you to be banned or blocked, but I am trying to get your attention to the issue of your own behavior. What I want is for you to separate YOUR issue of your being very angry about changes to United States, where you have a legitimate right to your opinion (as does any editor, including of course Ficaia) from the POLICY issue where your behavior is repeatedly off-the-charts uncivil and uncollegial. It violates AGF to proclaim that another editor was trying to be deceptive or tricky, or was motivated by fascism or racism. Ficaia has been making similar edits to articles for quite a while, with no deception involved. The background issue is that the LibraryClerk sockfarm spent literally years adding unquotable POV-pushing quotes to many articles. My issue is not so much with LC's particular POV as with the problem that we are a storehouse of quotable quotes, not a warehouse of lengthy accusations. Removing a paragraph of editorializing from a WQ article doesn't vanish it from the universe or murder the voice of its author. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on this, HouseOfChange. I completely agree with you that I should be able to make a criticism without degenerating into language that appears as off the charts uncivil and uncollegial insults. I think I was doing OK until Ficaia responded to my wall of text with a one liner and reverted my edit. This made me feel like he was in utter contempt of wikiquote policies, and I sunk down to a similar level. But you are right, that should not have happened.

Other editors have also indicated to me that they are finding cases where they perceive this user's edits as problematic. Perhaps they wouldn't use the word "tricky". I will allow them to speak for themselves. Honestly, it is hard for me to not perceive an editor who says they removed the quotes based on one criterion (not widely quoted), when in fact that is not the criterion actually used, as at least a little tricky. The AGF document also states, "Pointing out that someone has contradicted an earlier statement is in itself a statement of fact, and is not an assumption of any kind. Contradictions can also be unintentional." So the correct assumption would be that the contradiction is unintentional.

I am not up to speed on the LibraryClerk sockfarm, so maybe that is an important factor that I am missing. How can I learn more about this?

I understand AGF policy and in fact I have argued that mass deletions are not a manifestation of good faith. This is an independent question from the question of my assumption of good faith, but still I feel it is relevant.

You mentioned that you are not trying to get me banned or blocked, but trying to draw attention to my behavior. I appreciate the feedback, and I can see the defects in my behavior. I go into more detail on this in the wall of text below in reference to the NPA policy. The problem is, Ficaia has repeatedly demanded that I be blocked. How does this escalation represent an assumption of good faith? It seems your application of the AGF policy to this case may be somewhat one-sided?

Regarding the question of "feelings" vs. Wikipedia/Wikiquote policy: I have reviewed w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks. My impression is that the purpose of this policy document is to teach me how to avoid making other editors feel personally attacked. It seems like feelings are relevant in this case, and Ficaia does feel personally attacked, so clearly I have failed in achieving the spirit of the article. I would like to fix this if there is any way to do so. Regarding violation of specific tenets of this article, here is my self-assessment:

• The policy states, "Accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links."

I claim I have provided serious evidence but you have designated the evidence as an insurmountable mountain of text and refused to read it.

• The policy states, "Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions."

I claim that in the case I objected to, the editor's personal political POV did negatively affect their editing and discussions.

• The policy teaches me to avoid using the word "you" as much as possible to avoid making another editor feel personally attacked by a negative review of their edits.

I reviewed my walls of text, and I see there are cases where my tone can be improved by this method.

• The policy states, "Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize [conflicting] views into a single article, and this creates a better, more neutral article for everyone."

This corresponds to my proposed settlement.

• In terms of responding to feelings of being attacked, the policy states: "Sometimes personal attacks are not meant as attacks at all, and during heated and stressful debates, editors tend to overreact. Additionally, because Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium, nuances and emotions are often conveyed poorly, which can easily lead to misunderstanding. ... While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others, if it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.

I claim it is reasonable to disregard my ill-mannered words for at least the following reasons:

1. I have repeatedly emphasized that my remarks are intended to describe edits, and are not intended to describe the editor.
2. I have retracted my words with subsequent edits where they are unfounded.
3. I have meliorated my wording when this does not detract from accurate portrayal of the conclusions of my analysis.
4. I have apologized and repeatedly reiterated that I never intended my words to come across as a personal attack.
5. I have repeatedly emphasized my good faith settlement offer to work together to create an article that can be satisfactory to Ficaia and other editors in the community.

• The policy states, "If possible, try to find a compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior."

This corresponds to my proposed settlement.

• The policy states, "Other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the conduct severely disrupts the project. Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered disruptive. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment: a block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks."

I argue that it is unlikely that I will continue personal attacks, for at least the following reasons

1. I have backpedaled, retracted, apologized, reworded, de-escalated and made repeated attempts at reconciliation.
2. I have reviewed the relevant policy documents and demonstrated an intent to improve my compliance.

This policy document also clearly indicates that going directly from noting an offense to suggesting a block is not the correct procedure. In fact, I argue that threatening to block an editor without due process constitutes a kind of intimidation. The policy indicates that the next step in a case of perceived personal attack is w:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I perceive repeated statements like "You should be blocked" as a clear attempt at intimidation. These statements are clearly invoking the threat of blocking as a punishment rather than a preventative measure, and are therefore contrary to the clearly stated policy of Wikipedia/Wikiquote. I might have perceived these threats as recurring personal attacks, but I have chosen to disregard these attempts at intimidation. In cases like this where both sides feel personally attacked, the policy clearly indicates that wasting time adjudicating who is the bigger jerk is a sorry distraction from resolving the original editorial issue.

Peter1c (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your intention to move forward with a focus on contents not contributors. Here is a link to early days of our discovery of the many-years-many-socks work to fill WQ with long unquotable POV-pushing stuff: Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/037#Clean up on Aisle Five. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA creating massive cleanup job to support spam article

Calling your attention to the entire edit history] of Biuc12, who came here to create three articles (Alexander Lukison, Democrats Party, and Leader of the Democrats Party) and also created nonsense templates (Template:Infobox officeholder2????) to support them, a massive cleanup job and waste of admin time. I propose instead blocking that editor and using TNT on his spam creations. But I am the newest admin so maybe others have a better idea? HouseOfChange (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree - I've warned him already regarding the removal of vfd tags and I agree that nothing in this user's edit history seems to be constructive. I would support a block. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange@UDScott i have done nothing wrong Biuc12 (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I have blocked Biuc12 but could somebody more tech savvy than I am take a look at his doppelganger IP helper's high-tech creations? What is Module:Detect_singular? These new accounts are not novice editors. Also a very similar IP was recently blocked for using very similar elaborate methods to promote a different non-notbable politician Alexander Bickerton. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Protection request

Hello, it might be better to protect All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 as it seems to be a huge target for vandalism. Jianhui67 (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Jianhui67 Done -‎Lemonaka‎ 19:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Some more evidence about the page Wikiquote:Votes_for_deletion/Sam_Pitroda

Hi, I got some email from one of the user in this case, yet again. I've forwarded all the emails to the mailing-list for reviewing and making decisions. -‎Lemonaka‎ 19:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Request IP block

Please can IP address 2600:1700:9400:1750:C83C:4692:2EF2:B0EF be blocked briefly. Vandalism. Cagliost (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cagliost This one has been stopped. -‎Lemonaka‎ 08:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Request for guidance

Several admins, including me, have reminded Peter1c of behavior policies here. For example, GreenMeansGo: "You need to find a way to interact with others without assuming bad faith and casting aspersions. You need to do it now"

Today, Peter1c has explained on his talk page that he refuses to comply because "By enforcing a certain tone, the WQ community is in effect excluding people whose communities do not use that tone...I am trying my best to fit in, but the demand that I become a completely different person in order to participate is unreasonable and excessive. I am loud and queer and I feel the community needs to make some effort to accommodate me as I am and stop demanding that I become someone else." And we should expect him to be triggered again when he sees "other communities being viciously attacked and denied their right to exist", for example by removing content that other people added with edit summaries such as "unquotable POV pushing."

I am a new admin here, and an "involved" editor in that he has spent quite a lot of pixels attacking me for working to silence important voices -- apparently I have spent years on WQ trying to silence people of color, people from universities, and today I learn I am complicit in censoring queer people also. Does anyone have experience or an idea, other than throwing out all our behavior policies to make WQ more hospitable to loud angry people? The problem is, of course, that loud angry people make WQ less hospitable to others. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no way to teach people about the realities of slavery and Jim Crow without making them uncomfortable. Your discomfort is called the illusion of settler innocence. Shattering that illusion is how we combat racism. The purpose of my confrontation with HouseOfChange is to demand that they comply with Wikiquote policy, precedent and consensus when deleting material added by other editors. House has responded to some of my concerns, and ignored other concerns completely. One demand House has completely ignored is my demand that "quotability" be adjudicated on the basis of Wikiquote policy. I have made repeated requests to de-escalate the conflict, and I am disappointed to see that House has decided to escalate it. My impression is that academics and non-academics have coexisted peacefully for the most part on Wikiquote, but now House seems to have developed an agenda to escalate a conflict between these formerly amicable constituencies by disparaging, disrespecting and removing eloquent and widely quoted academic voices from our project. In doing so, he is not following the pattern of respectful discussion he here proposes to enforce. In this edit, to cite just one example, House has designated a widely quoted text from world-renowned academic Noam Chomsky as "unquotable blather". Apparently this verdict about the text is not unanimous, as I see the quote appears in at least 8 books and at least 28 web articles. What I am demanding is that House provide some kind of rationale for deleting contributions from other editors that at least makes a pretense of being objective. My initial proposal for one possible way to accomplish this is shown here. Wikiquote has a policy for ascertaining whether quotations meet "quotability" requirements. As I understand this policy, the designation of a quote as quotable or unquotable is not intended to be an entirely subjective assessment subject entirely to the whim of the editor. My understanding is that the existence of policy documents like WQ:QUOT implies the Wikiquote community is subject to at least some requirements of the rule of law. In particular, deleting good faith contributions of other editors seems to require a persuasive justification to override the presumption of good faith. I did not add this particular quote, but yes, I was angered when I saw the edit summary dismissing it summarily as "blather" with no attempt to justify the deletion based on actual Wikiquote policies. Designations like "blather", "wall of text", etc. have a notorious reputation for being used to silence the voices of oppressed peoples. This is the problem: House engages in puerile, disrespectful name-calling, and then when other editors get angry and call him out on this, he proposes to ban us for our anger rather than addressing the problematic behavior that leads to anger in the first place! The pattern you are witnessing here is a common one. An aggressor in a position of authority makes insults and inflammatory statements in an attempt to enrage their powerless target, and then when the target reacts, the aggressor points to the anger of the target and demands they be sanctioned for it. I would also request that witnesses to this discussion please consider the possibility that the proposed escalation of conflict about tone and decorum is being used as a distraction from addressing the substantive issue I initially raised. This escalation comes just two days after I proposed a detailed method for adjudicating conflicts about quotability objectively on the basis of Wikiquote policy. My impression is that House is escalating the issue of the tone of my demands for accountability to evade responding to these demands. House does not want to be held accountable to Wikiquote policy. He is attempting to silence the messenger making these demands to avoid actually having to respond to them. I have a lot more to say in my defense, and I hereby request that some time be allotted for me to prepare a defense before proceeding with any action against me. I also think it might be a good idea to allow for a "cooling off" period before continuing to escalate this conflict. Peter1c (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we issue a formal warning? Like Wikipedia templates Uw-disruptive1, Uw-disruptive2, Uw-disruptive3.

We need to warn Peter1c that a ban is coming if he does not change his behavior. I have followed the dispute at #Personal attack and Village pump#Pattern of mass deletions in United States and other articles. I see a repeated pattern of rapid escalation of aggression by Peter1c, followed by apologies and promises to do better, followed by rapid escalation of aggression again. At some point, these promises may become unbelievable and a ban will be required.

His demands we change our policies are unacceptable. We must act to keep bad epistemologies out of Wikiquote, such as:

allegedly "queer modes of expression", "cattiness", "colonizer playbook", "I brought their voices back to life on Wikiquote. And you have just murdered them again. I am not going to react calmly to your murder of all these voices. They are my comrades. You propose to come in and demolish everything and rebuild it according to your plan. That is a colonizer mentality. I will continue to assert the right of the indigenous content on this page to speak, and not be murdered.", "You can't expect me to remain calm and level headed", "I am 57 years old and you are raising my blood pressure with your attacks. You begin by attacking, deleting more than half the content of the page. Then you become upset when I react and step out of line. It is such a classic colonizer move." "You have colonized the page".

Peter1c has apparently been so miseducated into a defective epistemology by his studies at Pennsylvania State University that it is hard for me to see how he can productively contribute to Wikiquote. We decide what material to include based on our existing policies, not the above low-quality modes of thought, and we should not update our policies to take this rubbish into account. Nor should we allow people to get their way through rudeness and bullying.

I endorse a ban now. Hopefully Peter1c will see this and change his behavior, before other editors agree with me. Cagliost (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

UDScott has also warned Peter1c. Cagliost (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to this discussion, @Cagliost:. Can you reference a WQ policy document, or evidence of broad WQ consensus or WQ precedent for condemning certain "bad epistemologies" coming from those nefarious universities? If you are proposing to ban me for insisting that administrators abide by WQ policies, and in your arguments you reference yet another fabricated doctrine without any attempt to show that it is WQ policy, WQ precedent or WQ consensus, what should I infer about the status of rule of law in this community? I will reply separately to House's original post. Peter1c (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The policy I have in mind is Respect other contributors which references w:Wikipedia:Etiquette. We resolve content disputes by civil discussion, not an inability to distinguish metaphor ("murdered", "colonized") from reality. Cagliost (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I AM PERFECTLY ABLE TO DISTINGUISH METAPHOR FROM REALITY. I AM USING METAPHORS IN THE HOPE IT WILL AWAKEN YOUR CONSCIENCE LONG ENOUGH TO QUESTION THE AGENDA OF MASS DELETION OF EVERYTHING YOU DISAGREE WITH. YOU ARE TRYING TO MURDER ALL YOUR OPPONENTS IN THE DEBATE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO WIN THE DEBATE!!!! SUCH DISGUSTING COWARDS.

• @HouseOfChange: The u template does not notify users. GMG^talk 11:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Well at this point I'm fine issuing a temporary block, and so long as the community agrees, an indefinite one-way interaction ban between P1C and HoC, appealable here after a few months. I'm frankly impressed that P1C didn't earn themselves a block when they started accusing others of being racist and white supremacists over a content dispute. GMG^talk 12:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Peter1c has been editing here since 2011 and has made many good contributions. I think we all wanted to give him a chance to pull up his socks and move on past attacking Ficaia. Well, he did move on, he moved on to attacking me, with the apparent next step attacking admins and policy for making our community inhospitable to angry people. I am not sure what has changed for him, but the recent pattern is very disruptive. I would support a short block and an interaction ban with me and with Ficaia. I do have a part in this too. I now realize that my edit summaries should cite policy (including quotability) and omit subjective criticisms (blather, POV-pushing, pablum). But "quotability" will always be subjective to some degree (although P1c has a proposal to change that, from which I am now allegedly trying to distract you.) When edits are contested we seek consensus -- that method has worked pretty well so far. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, please, to a two-way IBAN between HoC and P1c. The community, including us, deserves a break. Apparently consensus is required for this to happen so please @UDScott, Lemonaka, Koavf: and anybody else who has an opinion. Hoping for the best, I haven't replied to the latest accusations. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I see I am on trial, and yet I am not permitted to make a defense? The sentencing precedes cross examination? This mock trial is a total joke!

@Peter1c: This is not a trial. It was a request from me to other administrators what would be the best approach to stop the ongoing disruption spreading across an increasing number of talk pages and, via edit summaries, articles here. You have now added many many more posts to this page, so how can you claim that you're not allowed to speak? Peter, I think you seriously need some therapy or medication to deal with your violently self-destructive rageoholism. You didn't used to be like this, something is wrong. Get help, take a break, and and we will welcome you back when you can function as a member of a community that is imperfect in many ways but still needs to work together without screaming insults. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I have blocked Peter1c for a period of one month. Any uninvolved admin is of course free to modify the block as they see appropriate. GMG^talk 20:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately necessary at this point. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. And I want to own up to my part in this. First, I realize now that I have been guilty for years of giving uncivil edit summaries, a bad habit that started when I was clearing up LibraryClerk in 2022 but has persisted and has understandably offended people whose GF edits I dismissed in a rude way. Second, it is possible that my experience of clearing up after LibraryClerk has made me especially ready to question and/or remove quotes with their POV. As P1c points out, parts of the LC POV are widely accepted in academia and should get some representation here, hopefully in "quotable" quotes. I have never tried to remove quotes for their POV alone, and even cleaning up LC I left "their" quotes that I thought were quotable. The bigger problem with LC (but not with P1c) was their love of conspiratorial deprecated websites like Unz as sources for their quotes. But I can see how P1c could have inferred from looking at my LC edits that I was hostile to LC's POV, not to LC's unquotability, repetition, and and bad sourcing. What I still can't see is how P1c assumed that deleting that POV from WQ was an ongoing secret project of mine. It isn't. I'm glad to see it here, represented of course by QUOTABLE quotes. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

  Legit block, anyway, the sentence like This mock trial is a total joke! implies an attitude of en:w:WP:IDHT -‎Lemonaka‎ 13:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Template at top of this page

Does anyone know how to fix the template at the top of this page? The most recent archive link is labeled "2023: Jan–May• June–Nov." While the page it links to is correct, we are now archiving sections from 2024 and 2025, but the link text has not been updated, it still says 2023. Cagliost (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Y Done The dates are a little wonky and the solution kludge-y, but I think it works. Good eye. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)