Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives


This is a messageboard for all administrators.

INSTRUCTIONS[edit]

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:

Bots
Renaming
Promotion

Tools:

Discussions[edit]

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.
Examples:
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)

Lilboy2002[edit]

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)

Sludgepump[edit]

Hello,

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)

69.17.141.122[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: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CensoredScribe&diff=prev&oldid=2128148 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)

Yes check.svgY  I have blocked this user again for a period of three months due to "Continued trolling, incivility, and disruption with pointedly inappropriate additions and revisions to Wikiquote articles, all of which have been remarked by multiple contributors". ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I have subsequently extended the block to six months and revoked talk page privileges because his response to the block notice was ad hominem and made objectively false statements about other contributors (to wit, that only two users remarked on problems with his activity, and that it was I who called him the most incompetent user ever). Other administrators may wish to consider whether it might be more appropriate to block this user for a longer period of ten years (as at RationalWiki) or indefinitely (as at Wikipedia). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

‎Bf7tsda68htwe3q8e7jg6sta8gs[edit]

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]

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.178.193.66 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)

Edit warring on Creationism articles[edit]

The images on the Kent Hovind and Ken Ham articles (which another registered user has pointed out don't violate Wikiquote:Image use policy) have been repeatedly removed by an anonymous user (24.184.132.160) who first decried the images as "unnecessary", then as "clearly for trolling", despite the fact that the majority of images are of animals or religious art which are perfectly illustrative of the quotes in question. - Mariomassone (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Though there are always potentials for contentions on the use of various images, and there might be valid arguments made for use of some others in some instances, I can agree that these used generally seem to be within the guidelines for the use of images here, to illustrate specific quotes and indicate aspects or issues related to signifiant statements on the pages, and I have again restored them, as has been done previously by others. ~ Kalki·· 12:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
The images were clearly posted to try to make fun of them. Wikis aren't the place for that. --24.184.132.160 23:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Fail to see how a picture of Loch Ness to illustrate a quote about Loch Ness, or an artistic depiction of the devil on a quote about the devil is "making fun". Also, the fact that you removed the quotation from the top image of each article is suspicious. -Mariomassone (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
oh wait, sorry. not all the images were trolling. I'll remove the ones that are. --24.184.132.160 02:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom[edit]

I don't often come to WikiQuote, and am much more active on Wikipedia and Wiktionary, so I was kind of surprised by all the remarks made by the user DanielTom that go entirely against WP:CIVIL. He was vigorously supporting Donald Trump on his article page while adding mostly negative quotes to Barrack Obama. Nothing inherently wrong with that - it's only human to have an opinion. But what did bother me were his provocative and borderline slanderous edit summaries.

These clearly go against the edit summary policy, which discourages uncivil and inappropriate summaries (including snide comments). By doing this, it effectively circumvents WQ:QLP and WP:BLP while still outing unsourced disparaging remarks for all to see; there is no source that Obama was lying or that he made a joke (apart from a tabloid), and many of the remarks are opinions derived from personal conclusions.

But this isn't a discussion about Obama or American politics. My main complaint is something I saw after that, which is his attitude towards other editors (including me).

  • On Kalki's page, DanielTom started a discussion titled "you should be ashamed of yourself", containing the text "So... you don't actually mind images highlighting and promoting "asinine racist delusions", as long as they make your political opponents look bad." I'm not sure where that comes from, but it's hardly an appropriate way to start a discussion and clearly violates WP:NPA. Here he refers to the concerns of him and another editor: "... a flagrant double-standard or politically motivated, [like] IOHANNVSVERVS' or Obama-loving Kalki's".
  • I've seen several snide edit summaries such as this one personally attacking Illegitimate Barrister. Here he immediately threatens him with a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard or Village pump over the use of blogs (which, ironically, he also does as can be seen above). Today (24 July) he also seemed to have been Wikihounding Illegitimate Barrister from 00:07 to 00:38, repeatedly reverting him on 4 completely different articles.
  • I don't know what happened regarding CensoredScribe, I guess there was a fair reason for his ban, but DanielTom's hostility against him is still worrying. Here: "You have added so much garbage and so many off-topic "quotes" to Wikiquote theme pages that it's probably going to take us years to undo all the damage. Your reading comprehension is evidently worse than a 5 year old's, and I even thought you could be mentally challenged, but after seeing this I now believe you are just trolling." Calling another editor "mentally challenged" because of their editing behaviour, no matter how disagreeable, goes so far against WP:NPA that it could probably stand on its own to explain why this user is unfit for the project.
  • Here he indirectly calls Ningauble a "useful idiot".

There's quite a bit more, but I'm sure the other editors involved are aware of that already. It should probably be noted that I didn't want to start with this. When he immediately re-reverted my reversion of his uncivil reversion on Donald Trump with the edit summary "revert troll" (again failing to assume good faith), I went to his page to inquire and saw several edits of him that showed widespread disbehaviour. I tried to confront him on this, but he removed my comment and called me a "troll" (again). I find it unfortunate that he completely rejects criticism and concerns. It's one thing to almost solely make controversial edits, but if one is incapable of cooperation I don't see the point of being on this project besides pushing an agenda. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

By choosing to focus on a very small but carefully-selected number of edits, and ignoring all the others, you can demonize anybody.

Of course I don't "completely reject[] criticism and concerns". And everyone who has ever talked to me in good-faith knows this. But when they come from bad-faith trolls (socks?) like you, I may. Just look at your attitude towards me from the beginning. You restored an edit by a blocked vandal with out of order, poorly formatted and unsourced quotes; of course I reverted you. And I should add, your incoherent and one-sided presentation above only confirms my reservations.

You say I am "vigorously supporting" Trump. I said "Obama-loving" Kalki. The difference is, my comment was relevant to the discussion, which was about possible political censorship. I will actually say that my edit summaries on the Barrack Obama page are accurate, and that I don't find them uncivil. (But I accept that different people have different sensibilities.) I am prepared to defend each one of them, although most them them (if not all) are taken directly from journalistic titles.

On to your "main complaint": you claim that I "personally attack[ed]" User:Illegitimate Barrister because I wrote in an edit summary:

  • "Eugène Ney Terre'Blanche (31 January 1941 – 3 April 2010) was a Boer-Afrikaner criminal" — clearly, it was User:Illegitimate Barrister who wrote the intro
Is this really a personal attack? Or are you just trying to make me look bad at all costs? Do you agree with Illegitimate Barrister's intro? You say that I "revert[ed Illegitimate Barrister] on 4 completely different articles", as if that were a bad thing. Again, you don't know what you are talking about. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of articles where Illegitimate Barrister's additions are going to have to be reverted, sooner or later. Just like hundreds or thousands of CensoredScribe's edits have been rightly reverted. See here for a short explanation (and an admin agreeing with me).

You then bring up an edit from over 6 months ago, just to pile on. You are new to Wikiquote (or are you?), and don't understand the damage CensoredScribe has done to this wiki. Or how much work it is to clean it up. (Re. "useful idiot", that was obviously a joke. I'm not going to apologize for sometimes writing edit summaries that are funny or entertaining to me. And N. has a sharper tongue than I do.)

You say I am "incapable of cooperation". Not true. I often seek feedback and ask questions when unsure about how to best improve articles, and have learned a great deal from more than one editor here. And I sometimes (many times, if I include here finding sources for quotes) help other editors with their questions. You've looked at my edits, so you know you are purposefully being unfair and dishonest. You say I am only on this project to push an agenda. I started editing Wikiquote in 2012 adding quotes to the Bertrand Russell page, and the overwhelming majority of my edits from then on have been (and continue to be) to literature pages. But you want to make it all sound negative. I understand that. Have a nice day. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to address one thing. Prinsgezinde claims he started this section because of my allegedly "uncivil reversion on Donald Trump". Let's see what he's actually referring to:

  • CensoredScribe's edit: "Two more gay quotes and one on hand shaking. Ivana Trump and Gene Simmons." Notice the first quote CensoredScribe added is worse than unsourced: it made a previous quote appear unsourced, and claimed for its own a source where the new quote isn't found. This is typical of CensoredScribe, as anyone who is familiar with his incompetent editing knows. The second quote he added appears to be floating with no source (again, typical) and the third is not in chronological order.
  • I revert CensoredScribe's edit: "first two are out of order and unsourced – Undo revision 2141703 by CensoredScribe (talk) feel free to add them back carefully, properly ordered and adequately sourced". Nothing uncivil here. Prinsgezinde's claim is false! CensoredScribe then reverted me back (as he always does), and I reverted him again with the edit summary: "I don't have to fix your mistakes and lazy editing". (Ningauble appears to agree.)
  • Prinsgezinde restores the vandal's edit: "Undo revision 2141714 by DanielTom (talk) - Unexplained revert and uncivil response. They are sourced, and "out of order" is not a valid reason." Notice that right away he starts with bad-faith. And right away he claims my response had been "uncivil". But that is false. (And the first quote is not in the claimed source, that I can see. It is unsourced. It, along with the others, messed up the article's formatting too.)
  • Prinsgezinde follows up by restoring a quote from a blog: "Rv biased censorship of criticism" So he also accuses me of censorship. Notice that poor-quality quote is taken directly from a blog, is not quoted anywhere, and is accompanied with an image caption that reads "Trump has aligned himself with the white." which is not even a full sentence.
  • I revert him: "Undo revision 2150304 by Prinsgezinde (talk) "Trump has aligned himself with the white." is not a full sentence, makes no sense. Blogger is not a presentable source" My first interaction with Prinsgezinde. No incivility. Then I saw that he had also restored that CensoredScribe's edit which had messed up the page and that had unsourced material, with an edit summary claiming "Unexplained revert and uncivil response". Again, that was false, because I had explained the revert, and had been civil.

So it was Prinsgezinde's lies detailed above that led me to revert him with the edit summary "revert troll". He got upset that I called him as a troll (even though his false edit summaries were trollish), and that motivated him (as he admits) to start this hit-job section. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I think you're very wrong about being able to find edit summaries like these for most editors. It is unusual and rather POV to make judgment calls about subjects in edit summaries. BD2412 T 03:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm wrong about something I never claimed I could do? Most editors don't make such edit summaries – even I rarely make them. What I said was that (1) they are not inaccurate, and (2) if you google "my" edit summaries on the Barrack Obama page you will see that they match exactly with the headlines of many of the newspapers that reported the quotes. But from now on I'll voluntarily limit myself to "+1" ("add quote", or equivalent) edit summaries at least on that page (and others where controversy may arise). ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC) P.S. Ah, you were probably referring to my very first sentence, but just to clarify, I wasn't thinking of edit summaries there, exclusively. ~ DanielTom (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe, and that's why I wanted to confront you about it at your talk page. But since in both the interactions we had you dismissed me and called me a "troll" (while recommending I do exactly this), I don't know why you'd respond in such a way. As I said before, I'm sure you had reasons. But that doesn't excuse such incivility towards other members of the project. I provided their names to hear their side of the story. Naturally, if as you said the editors in question know that you are a good faith editor and that you were kidding or joking lightly in your mentions of them, they can vouch for this and it can be verified. But you can't know if others perceive a remark the same way you wish them to perceive it. As for my revert, it was indiscriminating. I noticed you had reverted several edits of CensoredScribe and IllegitimateBarrister using such edit summaries as "I don't have to fix your mistakes and lazy editing" (which was the one that I found uncivil). At this point I didn't yet know that there were problems with CensoredScribe, but still, this is not an acceptible edit summary. Another thing that should be noted is that when starting a discussion at the AN, it's the point that I provide diffs and my complaints. You said so yourself. But that doesn't give you the OK to call me a "bad-faith troll" (again with the troll) and accuse me of being a sock for no reason whatsoever. This isn't a fight. I'm voicing my complaints and if you have complaints about me, you can start one on me. If you have complaints about my complains then that's fine, but argumenta ad hominem and appeals to hypocrisy are unhelpful.
PS: Yes, I am "new" to WikiQuote. That's between quotes because that means I don't often come here, but have been here since I started on Wikipedia. I addressed this in the first line of my complaint. But incivility is frowned upon on all Wiki projects alike.
PPS: I forgot to link User:IOHANNVSVERVS. Prinsgezinde (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
My calling CensoredScribe's lazy editing "lazy editing" was not uncivil, and hardly justifies your own incivility, smears and misrepresentations towards me. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The locus of this dispute, as I see it, is the restoration of previously removed content in the Donald Trump article by Prinsgezinde. This was removed again by DanielTom,[1] which gave rise to a brief, abortive exchange on DanielTom's talk page.[2]

    Before delving into criticism of DanielTom's conduct in other regards, which may have merit but are only argumentum ad hominem with respect to the contested edits, let us examine the three edits of Prinsgezinde that are in dispute.

  1. Prinsgezinde's first edit to the page[3] restored content, originally posted by CensoredScribe [4] and removed by DanielTom[5], that included unsourced quotes and a patently false citation, contrary to Prinsgezinde's assertion that they are sourced. On appeal by CensoredScribe the removal had been endorsed by myself[6] and by UDScott[7]. It may be possible to salvage some parts of that edit, but restoring unsourced and false content is not appropriate.
  2. Prinsgezinde's second edit to the page[8] restored content originally posted by Illegitimate Barrister[9] and removed by DanielTom[10] and myself[11]. First of all, Prinsgezinde's edit summary, "Rv biased censorship of criticism", is plainly false. Far from being critical, the quoted blogger expressly says "this is a very positive development for America" in the linked blog post. (2) I stand by my original rationale for removing the quote: it is not widely quoted, and this blog post is not notable. (Cf. my position on bloggery at Wikiquote talk:Quotability#Tweets, blogs, chatrooms, &c..)
  3. Prinsgezinde's post on DanielTom's talk page[12] made no attempt to enquire what was wrong with the reverted edits or to explain why they should be retained. It was entirely and exclusively an attack on the person.
Whatever may be said about DanielTom's demeanor (which may indeed be over the top in some respects), regarding the actual edits in dispute here, Prinsgezinde is in the wrong. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you misrepresent my point there. That wasn't my complaint. I couldn't care less about that edit, am fully willing to admit I was wrong, and care solely about the way it was explained and how the behaviour was later justified. It should also be noted that I only posted in his talk page after seeing how he treated other editors. I feel that after seeing that, my statements were appropriate and definitely not an attack. I could have expected it would have been easy for DanielTom to paint me as an angry editor out for revenge, so to speak, but this is solely and exclusively about his behaviour. I would still like to hear from the other editors. I believe you and DanielTom have a reasonable relationship, but his comments towards the other editors were a lot more severe. So, in summary and once and for all: this is about DanielTom's editing behaviour in general. If people for some reason want confirmation that I don't seek revenge about people who annoy me, have a look at my history (on Wikipedia, for instance). But I would consider accusations of me starting this topic for other reasons as being an ad hominem, and not helpful in regards to the issue in question. Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

YouTube comment added as quote by WQ admin[edit]

Hey there folks, now I'm not a Wikiquote editor, I've stumbled upon this completely by accident, I don't have any idea about the ins and outs of this project, I'm a couple of months late, and I'm not much for internet drama, plenty of that at our local wiki, so feel free to tell me to buzz off if I'm way off base here. But I'm pretty sure basic wiki project rules and Wikiquote:Wikiquote and whatever still apply.

One of your current administrators (!?!), User:Illegitimate Barrister, has seen fit to add a YouTube comment to three pages on here about a year ago and then again in January this year, even rendering the YouTube screen name TheDreadBaron123something as "T. D. Baron" in the attribution. Here [13], here [14], and [15]. As I said, I got basically zero clue as to how you do things here, but what the hell.

I also first posted this over at VP a while ago, because I'm dumb and didn't realize you guys also got an admin board, which ought to have been quite obvious. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this inappropriate content. "What the hell" is about right.

Adding a non-notable pseudonymous/anonymous post from an open comment/discussion thread was very poor judgement, and it is almost unbelievable that an administrator would use such a misleadingly bogus citation: the quote is not from the titled work, nor is the (mis)identified person author of the work. (I say "almost" unbelievable because I have actually seen this sort of thing before, from the same administrator.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it was not a good addition. However, ultimately the process works. The bad is spotted and removed. BD2412 T 23:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Like seriously, what is going on here? I got curious and User:Illegitimate Barrister looks to have done this many times in addition to the above! Random guys from a discussion board, sometimes with usernames changed to look like actual people in case their screen handles were off – but not always?! See [16] and [17] and [18], but that's not all! It's a major pain to go through literally hundreds of diffs, so I checked this out and just ctrl+f "civil war talk" in the articles listed. I'm absolutely flabbergasted.

You'll see the same process applied to United States (a quote attributed to a 'Red Harvest'!), Abraham Lincoln (two quotes by 'Forever Free'), Republican Party (United States) (three quotes from that forum, by 'Brass Napoleon', 'J. Peter' who is actually jpeter on those boards, and 'Forever Free' again), Georgia (U.S. state) ('Brass Napoleon' again), Confederate States of America (one by 'Forever Free', another by 'John Hartwell'), John Brown (abolitionist) (a quote attributed to 'Dan Wykes' who however actually goes by 'Danl1860' on civilwartalk), American Civil War ('Brass Napoleon' and 'J. Peter' again).

And that's just a single topic/site – don't forget my original post was about a YouTube comment, not the civilwartalk site.

Now I don't mean to be rude but how the hell is this not vandalism or against the rules, and how is this guy an admin, seriously? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just couldn't let it go. So guess what I did? I went and randomly opened a couple more contributions by the user. In one I found a blogger being quoted[19]. In another, A REDDIT POST!!! [20] There's actually two quotes from 'Irish Fafnir' from reddit there but I just didn't have the strength to look up the second diff. In the next, a self help metaphysical preacher guy? Diff[21] & about the author[22] (not as outrageous as the others maybe, but still a rather dubiously notable addition, no?). Then literally some random dude's blog[23] (since removed). Joke car reviews – admittedly from a 300k YT subscribers author[24] so maybe not completely off. A joke about Detroit/Cleveland from a user of an alternate history forum[25]. Also tons and tons[26][27][28] of sourcing quotes to the aforementioned civilwartalk forum – I'm no expert but the quotes are probably fine judging by some googling, why ref them with a message board though. And these are just random finds from less than a year ago. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The first bunch of "additions" (the Civil War Talk stuff) I mentioned in my 2nd post should be gone now. I have also removed two more things. First, a GT Yelverton quote which I believe does not pass notability but I pretty much stumbled upon it by accident. Second, SOMEONE'S COMMENT ON A BLOG (like, not even an article, but from the comments!) which was attributed to a random dude who happens to share the name with a rock guitarist[29].
I want to stress again that I don't know how you guys do things here, but this is beyond bewildering. It seems pretty clear to me that the above edits are just
  • the tip of an iceberg (as evidenced by a bunch of random edits from the past couple of months turning up more and more of this stuff),
  • clearly indicative of a hardcore POV/agenda (as much as, at its core, I might actually agree with it – just not like this at a wikiproject!),
  • and they go beyond this "simple" (though, I think, still clearly unacceptable) treatment of the topic of ACW to the bizarre realm of adding a joke from some message board.
As if literally quoting random people from the internet talking about the ACW was not bad enough. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Another tip of the iceberg: Amazon customer reviews. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad CCCVCCCC has raised this issue. I also noticed that User:Illegitimate Barrister has been making edits that seem to be motivated more by a political agenda than by the intention of creating a high quality Wikiquote website. This includes quotes from non-notable and marginally notable sources. It includes quotes on theme pages that are marginally relevant to the theme. DanielTom has raised this issue with Illegitimate Barrister before. Illegitimate Barrister responded by merely deleting the attempt to begin a discussion. This seems to me contrary to the spirit of resolving disagreements by open and civil discussion. ~ Peter1c (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

For the record, Illegitimate Barrister added comments from LiveLeak too. (In one of them he links to the non-existent Wikipedia article "Captain Kuntflaps".) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I would remove every quote linked to a speaker with a non-existent Wikipedia article. BD2412 T 18:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Linking to a nonexistent Wikipedia article is a common enough mistake for newcomers, especially when just following boilerplate examples. (I have inadvertently done it enough times myself, mostly due to typos or missing disambiguation, that I long ago acquired the habit of checking links in a preview before posting.) When an administrator with tens of thousands of edits does this habitually, I have to echo CCCVCCCC's exclamation again: what the hell! ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree completely. In this instance, however, I am proposing a rule of thumb for removing questionable additions rather than governance for future additions. BD2412 T 14:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

User:TheKosmozoan[edit]

I happen to notice that User:TheKosmozoan has a similar edit pattern as User:CensoredScribe adding youtube links [30], adding quotes to not-directly related topics [31], adding large quantity of text [32], [33]; and starting articles with incomplete source data [34], which includes random bolding... and he is also working in the same field, and uses the same uncommon html-tags. What hit me at first was the number of quotes made in a short period of time [35], which suggests we are dealing with an experienced user. Any ideas what to do here? -- Mdd (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC) / 16:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything that leads me to suspect this is the same person. I am inclined to assume this new user is acting in good faith, and might benefit from a little polite and diplomatic feedback about improving their contributions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An "experienced user"? Ha, I wish! -- I'm rather quite new to this whole 'Wikipedia editing' business, as I can image (or at least suspect) is rather obvious at this point, given the long grocery-list of errors I seemed to've made, and as you've pointed out above. As for the incomplete articles you mentioned, I apologize; being new here, I thought I might just go ahead and create them using what little editing experience I had at this point in hopes that other more experienced users would correct/enhance them in due course. The way I see it, a modest but incomplete entry on a subject is better than no article at all! :P ...or perhaps I'm wrong on thinking as much? (Not a rhetorical question by the way, I really don't know the answer! Again, this is all very new to me.) As for Ningauble's input, if there's any help/pointers/advice (etc.) either of you can give a guy like me, I'm eager to learn and willing to listen. (PS I have no idea who this 'CensoredScribe' is). ~ Cheers, TheKosmozoan

Wrong categories and MW userbot to be blocked?[edit]

In the last days Special:Contributions/Babel_AutoCreate is creating user language categories with wrong capitalization. They should be deleted (just those created in August 2016). In addition, in other projects (e.g. en.wiki, wikidata and it.wiki) the account has been blocked until the problem will be resolved: the bug on phabricator is phab:T63993. This doesn't mean you must block it, it was just for you to be noticed. (but of course if you don't block it, please check his contributions every while). --Superchilum (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not the first time the bot has gone off the rails. Hopefully it will be fixed soon. If not, I will escalate the issue to global functionaries. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I saw your post on Phabricator, thanks. Meanwhile, more categories. --Superchilum (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Now in Greek[edit]

Yesterday I created the Administrators' noticeboard in Greek Wikiquote.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Unprotect Tenth Doctor page[edit]

There are several inaccurate quotes on the Tenth Doctor page, and for some reason it has been protected for an entire year by Ningauble, yet doesn't seem to have been needing protection. Jeffknight (talk) 09:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not know why this was protected for an entire year, and was going to change the protection level, but let it remain for now, as it is only protected at the level of new and unregistered users, and thus you should be able to edit it soon. ~ Kalki·· 12:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it had been indefinitely semi-protected and I reduced the duration by setting it to expire (log). (I did this with many pages I reviewed after a recent discussion about over-use of indefinite protection.) I would not object if someone removes the protection altogether. Since the article no longer covers the show's current season, as it did at the time it was originally protected, there is probably less inducement for bloating and edit warring. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)