Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to 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]

Please protect article[edit]

There is an IP removing quotes that are sourced, claiming that they aren't verified. I believe the IP to be a person known to the subject who is trying to take out things that the subject has actually said. The article is Jonathan Mitchell. TLPG (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to WQ:NQUOTE, those quotes and sources are unreliable. Enjoy your block. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:2D09:BD4B:826A:C7BB 16:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The above message demonstrates the need for the article to be protected. TLPG (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
How? You need to explain why you think this. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:C970:645E:B158:9CA4 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You have an account and you aren't using it - that's how. You are hiding your identity from others (I know who you are) and it's time that stopped. Own what you say. TLPG (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, falsely accusing me of having an account with no evidence, this makes you look suspicious 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Your IP resolves to the hometown of a known user and the edits are the same. TLPG (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Which means that I must be that "known user" because it says we might be in the same hometown? Which edits are the same? What are you talking about? You make no sense whatsoever. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Way to avoid the overwhelming evidence against you. You did this on Wikipedia as well. Promoting Mitchell as the ideal source on Autism when he isn't as the quotes I added prove. You're trying to delete stuff that makes him look bad - every time without fail. Under your account and now, both here and on WP. TLPG (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

TLPG keeps vandalizing article[edit]

User:TLPG wilfully fails to follow WQ:NQUOTE on the Jonathan Mitchell article. His edits are a means of attack. His page has already been deleted twice for spamming [1]. He has made the same spam edits at [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]

Please take appropriate action

2606:5580:30C:7F9E:2D09:BD4B:826A:C7BB 16:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, the source this IP claims is unreliable is Jonathan Mitchell's own blog. WikiLubber (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Not only that, this IP is the article's creator not logged in and he is seeking to prevent balance in the article. He needs to be forced to use his account and protecting the article (as stated in the previous section) would achieve this. TLPG (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
But TLPG's quote selection is not notable at all. Also, I believe that WikiLubber is a sock of TLPG. Edit: I opened an investigation [9]
Both have had their userpages deleted multiple times, and both are known to spam the Wikis multiple times.
Also, both don't provide sufficient evidence for their arguments against me, and both have spammed https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:2606:5580:30C:7F9E:4835:8C0D:B816:DAB3 with the same sentence, which seems highly suspicious. On https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiLubber#Thanks, TLPG seems to instantly give support to WikiLubber as an admin, even though he might not know WikiLubber wants to be an admin. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:C970:645E:B158:9CA4 23:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
None of yours are notable either just by the way. You are a vandal and you aren't using your account so you are socking as well. All you are about is making sure Mitchell's views are promoted as correct and I am providing balance so show tha6t he is not the angel you are promoting him to be. Leave the quotes there. Mitchell said them and show him to be who he really is. It;s a simple choice. Either it all stays - or it all goes. Oh and I never created a user page and I am not spamming. TLPG (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"you aren't using your account" I have no idea what you are talking about, I never had an account on this site, and assuming this only makes you look more suspicious. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
You are lying and I know you are lying. TLPG (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh and I see that your report to Wikipedia (which I have NEVER edited on as can be seen) got you a week long block. TLPG (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I got blocked, I just didn't understand why my report was deleted and thought I should re-create it to get a better answer. That's all. Hopefully I am allowed to post through this IP : ) 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
You got blocked because your report was totally failing in content and evidence. TLPG (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, didn't know that was a reason, sorry 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:6177:4D71:35E5:E96D 02:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please don't import English Wikipedia conflicts onto other projects. It's generally considered bad form. Other than that, if we really need an outside opinion, I would tend toward excluding the quotes, unless they've been quoted in some secondary source. Person-A saying something that Person-A said isn't really "being quoted in", that's just "being said". If we want to demonstrate that the quotes are quotable, then we should find somewhere where they're actually quoted. GMGtalk 18:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Just pointing out that I was simply responding to the IP's comments. Sorry if that was out of turn.
On what you said otherwise, all the quotes have been used on secondary sources as indicated with one of them linking to where the subject actually said them himself. I have challenged the IP to present their argument on the talk page, and so far nothing. TLPG (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
The philgluyas.com site appears to be simply "some blog" by "some dude" dedicated to ranting about how this guy he doesn't like is a bitch, a coward, and an idiot. That's not a secondary source for our purposes and not at all the type of source we ought to be using for contentious material about living persons, or really for any reason whatsoever. Moreover, per WQ:NQUOTE, we specifically should not be including content from blogs and comments on online forums, when all these appear to be are online comments from a blog posted on another blog. GMGtalk 14:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
This part of the conversation should be taking place on the talk page of the article shouldn't it? TLPG (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably, but Wikiquote is such a comparatively tight community I'm not sure it does any real harm to be having it here, since here we are. GMGtalk 22:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Except that I already started a discussion about what has been IDed as a content dispute on the talk page of the article before you commented here. The IP was challenged to be involved there as well (no sign of him yet). TLPG (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone want to weigh in on the fact that TLPG and their obvious socks have unilaterally decided to redirect the article? Does this noticeboard serve any purpose? GMGtalk 03:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I just saw this for the first time a couple of days ago and honestly didn't want to get involved--I had hoped it would resolve itself. What is your proposal, User:GreenMeansGo? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: I have reverted the redirection as an out-of-process deletion. GMG, you're interested in standing for adminship here, I would definitely support you in that effort. BD2412 T 04:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@BD2412: It's not a deletion. It's a redirect. If it was a deletion I wouldn't have added the quotes to the Autism article. The redirect is for the article's creator to contest. I therefore assert that the redirect isn't out of process - unless redirects aren't allowed here. I'll wait for an answer here before I re-establish the redirect. Oh, and GMG, please revoke your sock accusation as that is a false statement that I repudiate unreservedly. You need proof. TLPG (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I didn't particularly want to get involved in the situation either, but it didn't look like anyone else was. And no, I won't be withdrawing my accusations of sock puppetry, because it is embarrassingly obvious. Please stick to one account and save us the trouble. GMGtalk 11:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
You will withdraw it because it is a blatant lie that I absolutely repudiate AGAIN!! I do not, and never have accepted being lied about and I'm not about to start. It is NOT obvious at all. You are just pushing your own biased opinion with no foundation whatsoever! TLPG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There is still the issue that we have housed quotes from an attack blog on a BLP for the last two years. Other than adopting WQ:BLP as an official policy (which we should definitely do, and which the Foundation recommends all local projects do), we should remove poorly sourced content on living persons, as it exposes individual editors, and the project, and the Foundation to potential legal action. If someone wants to edit war over poorly sourced contentious material regarding living persons, then we should show them the door. GMGtalk 11:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
We've resolved that now - but for the record it was not poorly sourced, because the origin of the quotes was linked and verified - Mitchell's own blog. And that's all I'm going to say about that. (Talking of notable quotes!) TLPG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • TLPG, removing all content from a page, including the introductory material and corresponding links to the Wikipedia article, is functionally deletion of that page, even if the quotes are moved elsewhere. I find no consensus for this radical change to the nature of the page, and since your edit has been reverted, it is incumbent upon you to generate a consensus before attempting to "re-establish the redirect". BD2412 T 16:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Point taken. I'll go and do a deletion instead. Not straight away though because I want to work on the wording to make sure I don't miss anything and I do have a life off Wiki after all! TLPG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
And done. TLPG (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by 185.50.25.24[edit]

IP is vandalizing many pages. --Esteban16 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Will someone kindly also show this IP the door? GMGtalk 14:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Apparently this fellow is going on a bit of an all caps tirade. Not sure their current contributions are terribly constructive. GMGtalk 19:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends vandals...[edit]

...are at it again. Apparently, protecting each article for six months was not going to stop them. I request each article (including The Railway Series, The Adventure Begins, etc.) be protected for no less than a year, and that all these vandals be blocked for no less than that same time period, lest they vandalize other pages. WikiLubber (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@WikiLubber: Reviewing briefly, is the vandalism only inserting empty sections for television show episodes? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
And changing quotes to the wrong ones. The same reasons they were protected the last time. WikiLubber (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. This is a little stale now, so please post again if you see more vandalism and I will respond. Thanks and sorry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Their vandalism continues. I keep telling them to stop, but they refuse to even reply. WikiLubber (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have extended the protection for all season pages for one year. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you kindly. WikiLubber (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No, thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal 68.201.9.142[edit]

It is changing the release years of film articles without explanation. I request all pages it vandalized be protected for no less than six months and the IP be blocked for no less than that same time period. WikiLubber (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done Block done. The pages don't seem like vandalism magnets at the moment, so I don't see a need to protect the pages. Please update if I am mistaken.Justin (koavf)TCM 00:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be Vandalism, please block: 2001:8003:4163:AD00:4837:9243:6943:2749[edit]

  • This unknown individual with no visible track record at wikiquotes, has twice deleted valid posts, without just cause.
  • 20:28, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,133‎ Nicolás Maduro ‎ Undo revision 2545711 by Om777om (talk) current Tag: Undo
  • 20:28, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,171‎ Venezuela ‎ Undo revision 2545712 by Om777om (talk) current Tag: Undo
  • 20:24, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,133‎ Nicolás Maduro ‎ Undo revision 2545709 by Om777om (talk) Tag: Undo
  • 20:22, 8 February 2019 diff hist -1,171‎ Venezuela ‎ Undo revision 2545700 by Om777om (talk) white supremacy in Venezuela? La la land Tag: Undo

Also a post on Mainstream media, but i'm dropping that one anyway. Please block him to prevent further mischief. Om777om (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The cause is that your quote is nonsense as I wrote in the edit description. White supremacy is Venezuela? That's why you think Maduro's reign is imploding? --2001:8003:4163:AD00:A57F:89CD:F59:78D4 20:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi 2001:8003:4163:AD00:A57F:89CD:F59:78D4 Please see:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Policies_and_guidelines - here we are encouraged to respect each other, despite different views. We are not supposed to delete other people's valid posts, just because we disagree with them. That is vandalism. When your views differ from views expressed by notable authors on posts here, please either ignore them, or consider finding notable authors & posting their quotes on the pages in question. Vandalising pages by deleting the work of others is not civil. Thank you. Om777om (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Note that WQ:VANDALISM has a specific meaning on Wikimedia projects, and does not include any good faith effort to improve the project, even if misguided. GMGtalk 20:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • GMG: Thank you for sharing that information.Om777om (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I my own opinion (others might disagree) the best way to deal with a content dispute is to demonstrate that the quote meets WQ:NQUOTE 1:1, by showing that it has itself been widely quoted by other sources, and not just taken from the original source directly. If it hasn't then it may not meet this criteria. GMGtalk 00:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In many cases for the sake of wikipedia's integrity & the value to the public, i would definitely suggest going beyond the first part 1.1 into the other aspects of the criteria 1.2, 2.1 & 2.2, for many reasons including the fact that very often some vital parts of a story are covered up by anti-democracy forces in power who do not want the people to know the truth.
  • 1.1 The quote has been widely quoted,
  • 1.2 The quote tells the audience something new and interesting about the article topic.
  • 2. Criteria for notability of sources may include:
  • 2.1 The quote is from a notable person
  • 2.2 The quote is from an expert on the article topic and appears in a notable publication....
    • IMO, We in the USA swim in a sea of lies, where the truth often sounds stranger than fiction (like nonsense), & the blind lead the blind, but that too will pass. Thanks again for your great work. Om777om (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That may be true, but the purpose of the project is to provide a lasting educational resource. Like Wikipedia or Wikisource, Wikiquote is agnostic to political trends, and it's purpose is not to tip that scale in one direction or the other. In my own opinion (again, others may disagree) if a quote hasn't actually been quoted, then it isn't a quote; it's just a passage. And our purpose is to provide quotable quotes which are demonstrably quotable because they have been quoted. GMGtalk 02:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalizing my talk page...[edit]

My talk page was vandalized by the same Toy Story vandal. I request indefinite protection, lest this occur again. WikiLubber (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Protected and blocked for a short term. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Cartoon IP[edit]

I'm not going to block them, because I reverted them, so I might be involved, but this IP seems to be engaged in a long term campaign about these arbitrary cartoons and whether they are done or not, and they seem to be done. Random pings: User:koavf, User:UDScott. GMGtalk 02:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: You should feel empowered to at least temporarily block someone who writes something like this. That kind of language is inappropriate and it isn't a matter of not knowing our rules or a misunderstanding about a fact like a show being canceled or not. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you need to worry about being involved when they write personal attacks like this and again in edit summaries. jni (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I also wanted to make I'm just not missing something regarding the factual accuracy of the dispute. I don't really deal with pop culture topics. GMGtalk 11:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the smaller community of active admins here, we are a bit looser on "involved" concerns. BD2412 T 04:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

IP vandal 96.4.107.9 strikes again[edit]

This edit proves it's a blatant vandal. WikiLubber (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)