Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/014

Matthew Sanchez again[edit]

An IP made a huge edit to this page. No doubt it's Matthew himself based off of this edit he just left on my en.WP talk page where he accuses me of "vandalizing the Matt Sanchez quotes" and that I "keep putting in quotes that are not sourced and are poorly edited". However, the only edits I have ever made to that page was adding a Conflict of Interest tag. I've never "vandalized" anything nor have I ever touched any of the content that was already in the page. I've got no issues with adding properly sourced content, but he whitewashed it by removing properly sourced content and changed sources to reflect his own POV. The sockpuppeting also should be addressed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No edits to the page since then, no edits prior to that for seven days - does not look overly disruptive at the moment. If it crops up again, could be time for a longer-term semi-protection on the page. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that this one needs an indef semi-protection as it doesn't appear Sanchez gets the point about sockpuppeting. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request[edit]

Due to harassment and cross-wiki harassment. See history of my user page and talk page. See wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, which is where the listed IPs/usernames are from.--Otterathome 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the named accounts exists at en.wikiquote, and it looks like there was only a single instance of IP vandalism/harassment on your talk page here. I do not see how checkuser is going to help your situation. What remedy are you seeking? ~ Ningauble 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is to flush out any further sockpuppets the user may have created to attack/harass me.--Otterathome 10:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the above accounts made any edits on this project? Cirt (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to all of those Contributions links above, only 1 of those listed has edited and it was a personal attack at Otter's page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As these all seem to have been already dealt with / identified / exposed through the process at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LOTRrules, they could be tagged with {{sockpuppet|LOTRrules|blocked}} -- that is, if they edit in the same basic disruptive w:WP:DUCK pattern as on en.wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ripberger[edit]

Could administrators and CheckUsers here please confirm that I am not banned-user Poetlister or in league with Poetlister. Please see my talk page for more details. I am still being accused of suspicious behavior here [1]. If the community believes I should leave, then I will leave. Thank you. Ripberger 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers don't usually check things on requests to "prove your innocence". Cirt (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem still continuing? If not, I will not check.--Jusjih 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text and tools on edit screen[edit]

Y'all will have noticed that when the new Creative Commons terms were added to the edit screen recently, our project's customized text and tools disappeared. Having tracked down what happened (talk), I am going to restore the custom content later today or tomorrow, as real life permits.
Subsequently, and subject to discussion, I also think some of our custom language about sourcing etc. could be improved. ~ Ningauble 16:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y I have restored customizations to the edit screen at MediaWiki:Wikimedia-editpage-tos-summary and tweaked MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning. Further improvements can be discussed on their talk pages. ~ Ningauble 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennys indefinitely blocked[edit]

Dennys (talk · contributions) has been indefinitely blocked, chiefly for this edit, but it'd been a long time coming based on several comments he'd been leaving me. I also just received four emails (titled "Fuck you", "I will get my revenge against you", "I will fuck your face", and a repeat performance of "Fuck you") from him, so he's been reblocked with email disabled.

Please do not unblock him without asking me first... though I really doubt that'd happen. It's just more that I'm not the most unbiased admin when it comes to the guy, so I thought I'd get an extra set of eyes on this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having observed the user's increasing belligerence, I was about ready to send a strong warning and back it up with administrative action myself. While I think the situation could have been handled more diplomatically, I doubt the final outcome would have been any different. He has had ample opportunity for learning to participate constructively, but apparently lacks the will or the capacity. ~ Ningauble 12:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it probably could have been handled more diplomatically; I'll willingly admit that I was at the end of my rope with him. However, telling me to sign off, then retire, and then threaten me... no.

If it were a constructive editor that had been doing this, I probably would have handed him off to someone else (or at least let the comments slide right by). But considering the fact that he's been fighting everything about WQ:LOQ and just all-around not understanding the point of Wikiquote (ie: to quote memorable lines, not every little thing that anyone has ever said), I don't feel like I've somehow wounded the project. (there was also the bizarreness that was the Lightsaber Duels VfD) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the block, good judgment. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the block, which was probably inevitable. - InvisibleSun 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to any admins that may catch any of his future accounts: please make sure to disable email when blocking him. Yesterday I got no less than 38 emails from him (most with just the subject line of just "fuck you"). While I find them funny, I can easily imagine him shifting his focus to other folk just for agreeing with my "illegal block". Thanks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests[edit]

I would like to request a check for each of the following groups of pattern vandals:

Dennys revenge 10 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 9 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 7 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 8 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 6 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 4 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 3 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 1 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 5 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 4 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge 2 (talk · contributions)
Dennys revenge (talk · contributions)
Dennys (talk · contributions)

- InvisibleSun 21:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And more in the same vein:

The revenge of Dennys (talk · contributions)
The revenge of Dennys 1 (talk · contributions)
The revenge of Dennys 2 (talk · contributions)
The Revenge of Dennys 3 (talk · contributions)
The revenge of Dennys 4 (talk · contributions)
The revenge of Dennys 5 (talk · contributions)

~ Ningauble 15:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Safferon Spano (talk · contributions) just bombarded me with 35 emails of the same variety that Dennys would send me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add Evula is a nazi (talk · contributions) to the list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "John series" had similar IPs but no usernames ever shared any single IP. The "Dennys series", "The revenge of Dennys series" and Evula is a nazi (talk · contributions) also had similar IPs, but the only shared identical IP at different time involved Safferon Spano (talk · contributions), Dennys revenge 5 (talk · contributions), Dennys revenge 3 (talk · contributions), Dennys revenge 1 (talk · contributions), and Dennys (talk · contributions) that are all blocked.--Jusjih 03:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do a range-block? I can't imagine that I'm the only one getting tired of deleting Denny's attack pages. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the CU report look against 166.205.135.149? I blocked a couple more EVula-named Dennys socks today, and then the IP turned up. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be possible to disallow usernames with "denny" or "evula" in them by using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? My only concern is that it might affect legitimate contributors named Denny. --Ixfd64 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it is too easy to invent variations that evade detection by blacklists and filters. The abuse filter has blocked more than 75 edits by this problem child, but has not curtailed his obsessive behavior. ~ Ningauble 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but we've already seen him switch usernames entirely with Safferon Spano. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Johnggg (talk · contributions) to the list... - mrmin123

Matt Sanchez[edit]

We have a serious problem at the Matt Sanchez Wikiquote page. There are unsourced quote that are constantly posted by vandalizing editors. Could we get a serious editor involved? Bluemarine 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Bluemarine's heavily biased position here (as the subject of the article), Allstarecho is introducing lame (in both quality and in sourcing) quotes and removing other perfectly valid ones, plus removing easily verifiable facts (such as Sanchez being a journalist) and introducing new ones (such as Sanchez's middle name being Ayala).

This is a dispute that's carrying over from en.wiki, near as I can tell, and it can go back there as far as I'm concerned; edit warring here will be dealt with swiftly, regardless of who may be "right." EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "introducing" anything, only restoring to the previous version before Sanchez's attempted whitewashing. He's been doing it as a sockpuppet under several IP addresses, and now under his own Bluemarine user name. As can be seen in my latest edit summary there, I said to add new stuff but don't remove the other stuff, aka don't whitewash just because he doesn't agree with what's on a page about him. Conflict of interest indeed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just looked at the porn content he keeps trying to whitewash. Every bit of it is sourced, including the Alan Colmes radio show transcript. I have restored that section. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EVula that this is spillover from Wikipedia, but not just the dispute: the whole article. Wikiquote's purpose is not to document juicy biography or to report newsy tidbits, and I have not noticed that any of the commentary that appears in the article from time to time between reversions was particularly quoteworthy. This may be a silly question, but would the disputants consider it an acceptable resolution to this years-long edit war if the article were simply deleted? ~ Ningauble 22:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal by Ningauble (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Matt's continued whitewashing of the article, and admin failure to stop it, I agree as well... delete and salt it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are acting like children. This is ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One accepts the fact that certain topics tend to edit wars: Christianity, Mohammad and so on; but we maintain these pages for their evident value, which needs no further defense. But of the Matt Sanchez page, we have to ask ourselves: has there ever been an article where there has been such shrill insistence upon our attention — expecting us to drop all else, to referee its edit melodramas, agenda-mongering, control-freak policing and mutual sockpuppetry — and all for what? An article which, even at best, has never been much. Our patience has been exhausted. It's time to delete this page until its participants grow up. - InvisibleSun 23:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the (rather bold) step of deleting the article. Definitely consensus here that it's not worth the trouble, but in addition to than that, in looking over Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matt Sanchez, I noticed that the chief supporters were Poetlister, Cato, and Yehudi; as in, all three editors are the same person. This is just too much drama over a single article that, as InvisibleSun pointed out, isn't really worth much in the grand scheme of things.
Now I hope we can put this enormous waste of our time behind us. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a rather bold step, as even without the bogus voting by Poetlister there was a majority in favor of keeping it, and I have restored the page. It certainly has been a problem page, which I personally have very little interest in, with both sides regularly pushing their agenda in petty ways, but I don't feel that this warrants the summary elimination of it. I personally would vote to retain it, with a cleanup of the existing quotes to conform to standard chronological arrangements. ~ Kalki 00:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the revert on the deletion; as noted, it was pretty bold, so I can't claim surprise or anything. ;) I just tossed it up at VfD; I really think we'd be better off without it (though I wouldn't be surprised if it garnered further character assassination of myself by Allstarecho on my talk page). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Please see ongoing Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matthew Sanchez. Also, I have cleaned up the page, with quotes from secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at page Matthew Sanchez and User:Bluemarine[edit]

I have recently become an involved party at the page Matthew Sanchez as I have worked to cleanup the page per the comment from Kalki (talk · contributions) [2] at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Matthew Sanchez. As such, it is probably for the best that I do not myself make administrator actions related to the subject of the page or the page itself, namely related to Bluemarine (talk · contributions) or the page Matthew Sanchez. However, I do note that it may be appropriate for Bluemarine (talk · contributions) to be blocked for edit-warring [3] [4] [5], prior history of IP socking on the page [6] [7] [8], and there is also the obvious SPA and COI issues. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I told him not to revert again or I blocked him. He reverted again. I blocked him.

Cause and effect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. However, see the en.wikipedia Arbitration case Bluemarine, specifically Bluemarine banned, and Log of blocks and bans. Unfortunately, I fear a block of length one day will not be sufficient. Cirt (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the notice by EVula (talk · contributions). Agreed. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page created which is obvious vandalism (speedy delete?)[edit]

Not sure about the procedure for doing this correctly, but the page Rocco Siffredi is blatant vandalism. User:InvisibleSun noted it earlier, now the original creator (as the only other thing he's done) has removed the notice. Needs speedy delete. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 05:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User only exists to add massive copyvios[edit]

User:Xeginy seems to exist wholly and solely for the purpose of importing as much text from every webcomic possible into Wikiquote. See all the contributions here: [[9]]. It has even been done to some articles that had been, at one point, pared down for copyright reasons; they're now just slowly getting bigger and bigger as this user keeps re-adding to them. I'm not sure what the best course of action would be, if an administrator maybe gave some sort of personalized warning about how important copyright issues to us here at Wikiquote? The importance of Wikiquote:Limits and Wikiquote:Quotability? I don't feel as if it would be appropriate for me to do so. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user actually does show some degree of restraint with respect to copyrights. It could be much worse, and fair use limits for some genre are difficult to quantify. However, the articles do seem indiscriminately long with respect to quality. My advice to contributors whose enthusiasm leads to excess would be twofold: Consider that you are writing for the general public, not just fellow aficionados. If an article is so long that I spend more time hunting for the good bits than appreciating them when I find them, then Wikiquote has failed in its mission of finding them for me. ~ Ningauble 15:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a friendly word of advice inspired some excellent re-editing. It is always better for a contributor who is enthusiastic about the subject and wants to do the right thing to do the trimming than for some bloody-minded administrator who doesn't appreciate the subject to hack at it with a meat cleaver. If only there were more editors like this — aficionados who want to show the subject in the best light rather than fanatics with no interest in being discriminating. ~ Ningauble 15:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would some admins check the history of this article[edit]

In checking recent changes, I came across this questionable reversion in the history of Ernst Kaltenbrunner (the IP most defnitely did not "vandalize," and should not have been accused of it--though it may have been a controversial set of changes): [[10]]. From what I gather, the IP's intent was to remove images that (I'm assuming) he considered to be loaded and NPOV in relation to their captions (given the controversial nature of the subject), and left the more appropriate, actually related images. From [before] to [after]. For example, the images of "Death" (i.e., the character Death) were removed from the article (a part of the removal I particularly support). This is not a fictional or poetic or artistic type of Wikiquote entry which allows us some interpretive/artistic leeway when choosing images -- this is Nazi history, and we should be careful (as I believe the IP realized).Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 20:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has seemed to notice this, so I thought I'd give it a bump.... Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 01:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried to address this A) at the article's talk page, B) by editing the article yourself, C) by addressing it with the editors involved... ? Cirt (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that would be appropriate based on my experience level versus the experience level of the editor involved (especially after I looked through his edit history and noticed a tendency to m revert things as vandalism that weren't--especially on articles created by him, place a minor tag on every edit he's ever made, and very rarely leave edit summaries, and some interesting exchanges he'd had with other editors). I just thought that an admin may have a better judgment with respect to this. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 05:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to assume good faith in your first interaction, be bold and engage initially, and then seek out admin help if things go awry. Cirt (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this suitable as a Topic page?[edit]

Looking through recent page creations, there is a high quality article at New World Order. However, it doesn't really seem to make sense as a Topic or article on its own. Its not clearly defined, and I'm not sure how it really comes together (is it quotes by and about right-wing America, anything applicable to post-September 11 politics, what is it?). It contains good quotes, but I'd like some of the admins to look at it and consider how appropriate it is as an article of its own...? Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 03:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very odd page - the intro cites the first use of the phrase as being in the 1990s, but almost all of the quotes are from long before that, and have no clear relationship to the phrase. BD2412 T 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that order in the world of Wiki is as intangible as order in the world at large. ~ Ningauble 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, um... does that mean we should nix this article (but make sure the quotes are / will be incorporated into their appropriate articles)? The Wikipedia link isn't even disambiguated by the creator of the page, and upon checking, I'm not sure if it even consistently applies to one of the Wikipedia articles on New World Order. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think the article should be deleted, but I think some ground rules should be adopted:

Only quotations that specifically say "new world order" belong in the article, whether they come from a political figure or from a well-known conspiracy theorist. David Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower and John Maynard Keynes all have their own articles for quotations that are speculated to be about the NWO.
Quotations should be verified from primary sources, or from secondary sources that are not promoting a conspiracy theory. Fake quotes are epidemic in conspiracy theory sources. w:User:WillOakland 08:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will, I am not very knowledgeable in the subject matter, so I couldn't appropriately do a cleanup as you outline in (1) and (2), I'm wondering if you'd be up to tidying it, as you appear more knowledgeable in the specific considerations. I was tempted to question it in the first place as it looked like a conspiracy theory compilation and was put together rather oddly, appearing to be compiled by someone with a "lack of respect" for standard academic rigour, eg., "Speach, 27 mars 1922," but if you'd like to work on it, it would be greatly appreciated. Peace and Passion ("I'm listening....") 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for Federal Reserve[edit]

I have cleaned up this article, which was tagged for cleanup in 2007. Could someone please move it to Federal Reserve System to match the Wikipedia article? w:User:WillOakland 08:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done ~ Ningauble 13:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"ass pus" vandal[edit]

An administrator might want to take care of Vorbis Lux (talk · contributions). --Ixfd64 10:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This manifestation of the twerp has now been blocked. ~ Kalki 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High volume of duplicate/redundant categorization[edit]

Pipedreamergrey (talk · contributions) has been creating duplicate categories and placing articles in redundant categories by the hundreds. While I think this activity is basically well-intentioned, the user is ignoring messages on his talk page and continuing the activity at high volume, including reverting corrections. As an involved party having been reverted multiple times, I hesitate to act unilaterally and would appreciate some diplomatic input from other admins. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 17:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody seems to be around, I went ahead and issued a final warning. When it was violated I placed a short block. ~ Ningauble 20:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the offense, but you were certainly correct in blocking the editor after he ignored multiple warnings. BD2412 T 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. I was too slow picking up on what was happening. ~ Ningauble 22:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser discussion[edit]

Please see Wikiquote:Requests for checkuser/EVula. Cirt (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users cannot edit their talk page when blocked[edit]

It appears that users cannot edit their own user talk page when blocked. Therefore, there is limited options for blocked users to request unblock. I think we should try to remedy this. After we have community support (and/or if there are no objections to this) we should file a request with the devs to change it on this wiki so that when a sysop blocks a user, they can check a box for the option whether or not that user should be allowed to edit their user talk page. Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: As a temporary fix, I added to the default text at MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the following: Alternatively, you may also email info-en@wikiquote.org to discuss the block. Cirt (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as proposed, above. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine to me. --Aphaia 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hadn't noticed that this wasn't already there. This is an absolute must of a feature, so I say go ahead and submit the bug for it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~ Kalki 15:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~ UDScott 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - InvisibleSun 16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a must. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it works for Wikipedia, so why not here? --Ixfd64 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Common sense. BD2412 T 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously. Pmlineditor ∞ 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (belatedly, I was out of town). Cbrown1023 talk 13:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jusjih 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course. — RyanCross (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Has this been enabled? If not, I can file a bug. Tiptoety ^talk 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

Hi, I'm new (well, not so new to Wikimedia projects, edited Wikipedia once as a vandal in 2006 from a public-terminal IP, but the warning stopped me!). I'm editing from a public terminal address right now actually but no worries no malicious intent here... however, I expect I'm not that good at first, also, are quotes from figures in the world of business/trade considered acceptable? --Cevissa 11:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from any notable person are acceptable, so long as they can be verifiably sourced and meet our guidelines for quotability. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that I vandalised once in the past because I didn't understand what Wikipedia was for? At least I've got a clean slate here. Sorry if I'm confused! --Cevissa 08:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your current actions are more important to us than your past actions. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 12:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat[edit]

Hello. Just a friendly note. Rush Limbaugh made a comment on his radio program about an hour ago indicating he was taking legal action that would target reporters and organizations publishing certain supposed false quotes about him. He noted this website directly. The offending quotes are on his article and noted as disputed. They are the quotes which are notably racist and in favor of slavery. I initially started a conversation on the wikipedia in search of the quotes [11]. I am not active on this wiki and unfamiliar with you policy in dealing with this. But please be advised of the legal threat. 66.38.8.229 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki (talk · contributions) has weighed in at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to go over the contributions of the editor who added the quotes [12]; he has also edited other high profile conservative figures and it would be pretty bad if there were fabricated quotes in those articles too. Thatcher 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should delete everything in all such articles that is not reliably sourced (i.e., sourced so that we can check it, and so that any reasonable person checking it would be confident that the source correctly reflects what was said, who said it, and when). BD2412 T 19:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BD2412 (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would go without saying. Does Wikiquote routinely publish quotes without sources? Thatcher 20:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, it used to. At present time, it most certainly should not. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Wikiquote" doesn't actually "publish" anything - the statement is rather like saying "the Internet" said something. Wikiquote is a platform to which quotes may be added by anyone, like a bulletin board in a public park. Occasionally someone will see and remove something that violates our policies (and WMF policy), but no admin has the time to review every edit, and particularly to check every legit-seeming citation, just as no one has time to check the whole of the Internet for accuracy. BD2412 T 22:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the page a bit, removing some poor sourcing [13]. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages edited by the IP [14] that I cleaned up a tad:

I have not yet had a look at Sarah Palin. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there are a lack of regular editors resulting in such high target pages not being watched, libelous or controversial quotes being added without references, and the lack of fast response in reverting them than maybe it is a good idea to semi-protect such pages and direct anonymous users to make editprotected requests via the talk page. Just my thoughts, Tiptoety ^talk 20:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked in here within the last half hour, after being away from my computer much of the day, and in response to the comment by Thatcher, I would note that Wikiquote and Wikipedia up to this point in time have routinely allowed editors the freedom to post and edit what they wish, and others to freely correct it, and trust that the process of correction generally produces something worthy of maintenance, though in itself never a product worthy of absolute trust — as if such exists anywhere among the works of humanity. We obviously do not have nearly as many people involved in either process as Wikipedia, and the few people who might wish to correct many flawed or abusive edits, or prevent the creation and maintenance of flawed or deficient rules cannot always be expected to do all that must be done.
I personally believe much of the editing presently occurring is craven over-reaction to the present circumstances, but I do not expect most people engaged in this discussion to actually agree with me, and I really am not that interested in preserving all that is in the process of being erased — but I do wish to note that I don't entirely agree with some of assertions being used to justify it. Though I will refrain from saying much more on the matter at this time, I believe the whole situation is highly ironic, and sardonically amusing, to the extent it is not bitterly appalling to anyone who has more than a rather microscopic and highly constrained appreciation of either justice or liberty, and are thus willing to accord the greatest amount of freedom to act as they will only to the most powerful, threatening or obnoxious of people, whether they call themselves liberal, conservative or anything else holy or unholy in defense of either brutalities or their acceptance of them.
I will probably check in on a few other things now, and perhaps post some work I had been doing, but hadn't finished up on one of the pages, but I might not even have time to do that until after I get back from another excursion of at least an hour. We all do what we must, and usually do what we think best, even though we all must have different perspectives on much of what these precisely are. ~ Kalki 20:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole of the problem is that if we do not leave it open for anyone to edit (meaning anonymous IP edits in particular), we would lose the vast bulk of our good contributions. Thus, we deal with the bad to allow for the good. Note, however, that just as anyone can add something malicious, anyone can patrol common targets of malice and remove that which is unsourced, or falsely sourced. BD2412 T 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki, just because I'm not active on Wikiquotes doesn't mean I'm a Wikipedia noob. :) The official policy on Wikipedia is that all edits must have a source, and can be reverted if they don't have a source. In practice, this is not followed 100% of course, but it is the goal, and it is enforced with extra sensitivity biographies of living people. I understand that if someone puts up a fake quote and gives a false source, it may never get verified. But this was a deliberate section listing unsourced quotes, that portrayed a polarizing political figure and a living person in an extremely negative light. It seems especially un-Wikipedia-like to intentionally set aside a section of an article for unsourced negative information. Cirt has clarified that this is no longer routine practice, which is a good thing. And no, it is not an overreaction to current circumstances to expect rudimentary sources. Thatcher 23:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rate at which material is added currently exceeds the capacity of administrators (or editors in general) to review it. As we draw more volunteers to the project, we should be able to ameliorate this concern. As a beginning, we might want to set a BLP policy that absolutely no unsourced quotes be allowed on pages of living persons (even quotes ostensibly awaiting sourcing). I hate to be protectionist, but we could go as far as locking pages on controversial figures like Limbaugh (and his counterparts on the left) from being edited by anyone but admins. BD2412 T 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher, Kalki's comments above must be viewed in light of the fact that he was warned about Eleemosynary (see below), his IPs and the quotes as early as December 2007.[15] Yet here he is, up until only two days ago, edit-warring to restore them.[16][17][18][19][20]Proabivouac 21:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time right now to review every scrap of dreck people might draw into this controversy. I supported labeling the dubious quotations as disputed and now support declaring them "misattributed" if there is no clear evidence of them. Other people feel more extreme measures are called for, or required, but I do not. I might well be in the minority on this, and others will prevail, but so be it. I have to be leaving now, for about 2 hrs, will deal with more of this later. ~ Kalki 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Proabivouac (talk · contributions). Kalki was involved previously on this page, for quite some time appparently. And as far back as December 2007 was warned about the problems on the page and with the particular IP in question [21]. Therefore I don't think Kalki is a previously uninvolved admin in this matter and probably not the best choice to monitor the page or its cleanup. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I expressed in my response to the comment on the matter I found on my talk page: "as I indicated earlier, and by my general reticence to comment or react as fully as I might during this whole fiasco, I am not all that eager to get involved in it anyway. I do reserve the right to comment and express dissent to what seem to be generally accepted decisions or opinions though. I don't believe that I can be counted as someone who is falsely expectant of truth and grace soon prevailing in all the affairs of human beings, rather than various forms of shallow opinions and desires."

I intend to continue to observe what goes on and perhaps occasionally comment upon it, but I during the last day or two, I actually have been refraining from edits I think appropriate, or reverting ones I believe inappropriate, and restricting most of my activity to the discussion of matters. ~ Kalki 23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I may have come across the wrong way, and for that I apologize. I have the utmost respect and appreciate for Kalki and Kalki's work and contributions on this project - merely that on this particular page, Kalki is not a "previously uninvolved" admin. Cirt (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W:User:Eleemosynary[edit]

The individual who added these libelous quotes appears to be en.wp.'s User:Eleemosynary.[22] Also see this IP - the Manhattan law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,[23] now Dewey & LeBoeuf.Proabivouac 02:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That IP has not edited since march. I am not sure why you are bringing this up. Tiptoety ^talk 04:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if it may sound radical, a simple rule which implies on the above sounds good to me: No source, no LPQ (regardless if it quotes from LPs, we don't welcome source-lacking things, but I'd like to simplify the issues as possible as I can). The quantity of inputs expects to be reduced, but the more complicated a situation is, the clearer and simpler rules work, my experience says. Thought? --Aphaia 06:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complete and total support for such a rule. BD2412 T 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what is being referred to by "LPQ" or "LPs" in this regard — "LPs" in the sense of audio albums certainly come to mind as a proper source of material. ~ Kalki 23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LPQ=living person quotes. Barring unsourced quotes from living persons' pages seems a minimum thing to do. I am somewhat dismayed that Kalki, an admin and bureaucrat, would not agree. Someone with that attitude about a living person's article on WP wouldn't get 10 votes at RFA, much less RFB. However, this is not my normal stomping grounds so I leave this to be dealt with by the regular Wikiquoters. Thatcher 01:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can discern, Kalki did not pass an RfA, but was made an administrator by Tim Starling at the suggestion of Angela Beesley.[24][25][26]Proabivouac 01:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this relevant? There's no doubt that Kalki received the support of the community in a request for bureaucratship, which reflects an even higher standard of trust. In any event, Kalki did not disavow the policy, he simply expressed that he didn't understand the meaning of a term which has heretofore not been used on Wikiquote. BD2412 T 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above, " I supported labeling the dubious quotations as disputed and now support declaring them "misattributed" if there is no clear evidence of them. Other people feel more extreme measures are called for, or required, but I do not." Thatcher 01:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A brief thanks to Thatcher for the info in regard to LPQ — that and LP for living persons isn't part of any jargon I had as yet familiarized myself with. In response to your other leading comment, frankly, I am more than a little dismayed that people would imply I have asserted something which I never have. I have made contentions that a published source should be adequate for inclusion in any page, and if reasonable disputes actually arise as to the accuracy or provenance of those statements they can and should be moved to "disputed" sections. If the provenance can be proved to be more than dubious and very unlikely to be genuine, it should be declared "misattributed", with as many of the facts of the matter as are necessary to make that case, as a repudiation of those who would imply it to be clearly genuine. I am not saying that plainly unsourced quotes should be included, but I am saying that neither primary nor particular secondary sources should be automatically excluded as some here have seemed to advocate.
As to the subsequent contention by Proabivouac that I did not have any official RfA, I would assert that there were not many more editors than me and Angela regularly working on this project at that time. I have served as an editor here from the first few days of the project, was grateful to be trusted as an admin for it allowed me to fight much vandalism that was very pronounced in the early days. I spent the first couple of years as one of the very few editors working on it a great deal, without ever bothering very much to try to make many rules restricting and constraining the actions of others, as many people seem far more interested in doing (rather than actually working on the thing itself), and as BD2412 pointed out, I did subsequently pass an RfA to become a bureaucrat so that other admins could be created without the intervention of stewards. If the majority of people here wish to question my worthiness as a bureaucrat I would happily resign those duties, as things that it is no longer strictly necessary that I retain, and had not really sought but out of recognition of the need for other admins, but I do not see how resigning from my duties and abilities as an admin would serve anyone, save those who would like to presume me easily humiliated or silenced by such measures. I do not believe that I have ever abused the powers entrusted to me as either an admin or as an autonomous human being, as some people seem to be very inclined to do. I remain very reserved, and restrained in many of my responses, although there are many that might seem overly bold to those more accustomed to associating with people of more craven character. ~ Kalki 01:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo BD2412 (talk · contributions) in my support for Kalki and Kalki's role on this project. With respect to this particular page, it does seem that Kalki has some prior repeated involvement. However, it is indeed quite clear that his adminship has the support of the community. Cirt (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I can't believe it has come to this...I too hold Kalki in the highest regard with respect to this project. While I may not always agree with everything that Kalki says, I have always considered Kalki to be one of the best sources of project wisdom and have never doubted Kalki's intentions as being anything less than striving to improve the project. I believe that we all have a voice in how the project evolves, and there can certainly be disagreement on how to proceed on matters such as this page, but I feel that through past actions and comments that Kalki is beyond reproach. ~ UDScott 02:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment by UDScott (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say that I find it astonishing that we've not seen even a token expression of regret or remorse for what this project has done to Mr. Limbaugh. Thanks to WikiQuote and its management, these fake quotes are now even in a book.[27]Proabivouac 09:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should write an angry letter to the Internet demanding that it issue an immediate apology. Okay, seriously, for all we know Jack Huberman added those quotes himself in order to justify putting them in his book. Because people such as yourself are declining to participate in Wikiquote in any meaningful way (you yourself having made no substantive edits, having never added or sourced a single quote here, and having heretofore never participated in any policy discussions), we lack the manpower to effectively patrol every addition to every page on a controversial figure. BD2412 T 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a moment, BD2412, the absurdity of your claim that those who have never contributed to this project are to blame for its errors, in this instance, even that train of illogic fails to find its tracks: the page was "patrolled" by your most senior administrator, who edit-warred to restore the fake quotes.[28] You just indefinitely blocked a "single purpose account" whose "single purpose" was exactly to combat these fake quotes.[29][30] Are you saying I should have arrived to revert Kalki and be blocked?Proabivouac 08:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the sourcing of a particular quote, you should explain to whomever is watching the page why you feel that sourcing is inadequate to support the attribution. The broader point is not about this particular page, but about the fact that we are constantly working to dispel the inclusion of disinformation, just as the admins on Wikipedia are, except that there are over a thousand on Wikipedia and two dozen here. BD2412 T 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But a number of peoople did "have a problem with the sourcing of…[these fake] quote[s]".[31][32][33][34](see talk page history generally) You say that WikQuote administrators "are constantly working to dispel the inclusion of disinformation," which may well be true in most instances, but here your most senior administrator was actively restoring misinformation which would have otherwise been removed[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] I don't see how you can explain that away; instead we've been reduced to indefinitely blocking the whistleblowers.[45][46][47][48][49][50]Proabivouac 11:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my jargon use and hence invoking a confusion, as said I meant "living person" and "living person quotes" with LP and LPQ. I'm not sure if I as the first one who used these jargons on the project, but agree with the others on that these words were not riped enough everyone on this project may have understood. As for community support to Kalki, I'd liked to echo UDScott and BD2412. It's no matter how an admin got his flag at the first time, specially the community are pleased to give him a higher privilege, such as bureaucratship. Kalki is a trusted user supported by the community and I respect his sincere devotion to the project and mostly friendly attitude to us newcomers (in comparison, I as Wikiquoter have been newer than Kalki) and his role as the lexicon of community history and then source of wisdom is without doubt in my opinion. That doesn't mean naturally we agree all elements of his statement, and I believe in Kalki and his reason to esteem sane, productive discussions to put forward the project to its mission. --Aphaia 13:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wickedictionary[edit]

The Wickedictionary = clearly not a reliable source for quotes. And yet it seems multiple users and IPs repeatedly attempt to spam quotes into quote pages from this source, see [51]. We need to keep an eye on this. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I removed these instances. They will probably reappear. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for heading up. Do you think temporary blocking of those IPaddr make a sense? --Aphaia 05:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. I think there are one or two accounts involved as well, however. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked User:TheVidiot[edit]

TheVidiot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Blocked user for one week. Disruptive editing, SPA on Rush Limbaugh, adding dubious sources after warnings at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the disruptive edits? Bearing in mind that the following restorations of malicious fabrications meet our standards for administrators and bureaucrats,[52][53][54][55][56] has The Vidiot fallen short of these?Proabivouac 11:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding dubious sources after warnings at the talk page. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Blocked indef, for socking, block evasion, with 17.224.39.234 (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and endorse this block. Pretty close to being a single-purpose POV account, flouted our policies, block evasion is just the final straw. BD2412 T 18:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block endorsed. Someone receives a block, violates policies, evades block... now, an indefinite block is appropriate, and that has now been done. — RyanCross (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (Ryan and BD2412), the only policy I violated was block evasion, and only to ask, “Why was I blocked?” And by definition, I could only violate that policy after I had already been blocked. I did not violate a single policy before that. If I did, please tell me what it was. The Vidiot 04:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable quotes[edit]

Umm, excuse me, but...if the only quotes that are acceptable are those that are deemed important enough by third parties to be discussed in secondary sources (a useful principle, as otherwise "Wikiquotes" becomes a hash of whatever crap strikes the fancy of particular editors who might have agendas or poor judgement) then I assume I can delete all of Seinfeld, all of Harry Potter, most of J. K. Rowling, most of Barack Obama, nearly all of Mark Twain, nearly all of Carl Sagan, and so on? Thatcher 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages about fictional shows and themes are generally handled a bit differently. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, regarding your examples about the real-life people, my personal opinion would be: yes. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues at hand are quotability and reliability. We could, for example, transcribe the entire body of Shakespeare's works into Wikiquote, which would just duplicate what is done at Wikisource - but not every line Shakespeare wrote merits inclusion in a compendium of quotes just because it's Shakespeare. We must have some means, whether it is by application of our own judgment (or, better yet, community consensus) that a quote is worth including, or whether it is by reliance on the fact that others have indeed quoted the same line. Applying this to modern figures such as a Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, and modern works such as Seinfeld, we run into a third problem of possible copyright infringement. Our judiciousness there is dictated not only by what is worthy of inclusion, but by how much of that stuff the law lets us use. Furthermore, we should not attribute to Shakespeare lines that he did not pen, or to Limbaugh or Franken words that they did not utter, but which are commonly misattributed to any of them. Instead, we should serve a Snopes-like function of debunking misattributions. BD2412 T 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BD2412 (talk · contributions), and would add that by relying on independent reliable secondary sources, we would naturally alleviate most of these problems. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proabivouac blocked[edit]

Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indef blocked. Account was SPA, with only purpose of trolling respected admin, Kalki (talk · contributions). Note: Please see also prior history of indef block at its en.wikipedia account, [57]. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other admins feel free to review. Cirt (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Proabivouac (talk · contributions) subsequently performed block evasion, using Special:Contributions/67.160.100.233. I'd still appreciate other admins reviewing this. :) Cirt (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At any rate, I think the threat of "outing" by Proabivouac is enough in and of itself for the indef block. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question seems to be a person prone to make very strong assumptions or accusations upon very little evidence, and quite presumptive in many ways, declaring "you sysops will learn to treat people with respect, or, mark my words, I wll teach you." Frankly I would not yet have even temporarily blocked the account, even for its rather insulting activity here, some of it directed toward me, but its user does seem to be primarily something of a bundle of rather wild hostilities thus far, and as was pointed out, has earned permanent blocking elsewhere, so I cannot say that I am at present strongly inclined to unblock. I will state, for the record, that I actually do have an IRC account, but it has been at least many months since I used it, if not over a year, having done so only a few times in the last few years. I hardly can be said to "hang out" there, and am checking in here only briefly, right now, because though I do like to "hang out" here, I must leave soon, for at least an hour. ~ Kalki 14:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to say that the block evasion, plus the threat of "outing" are certainly not qualities we would desire in positive contributors to en.wikiquote. The threat issued by Proabivouac's sock was: If I'm not allowed to even speak, I'll not be inclined to follow Wikiland rules, and don't be surprised if and when I don't, starting with the prohibition against "outing.". Cirt (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with block per Cirt. This user's threats of "outing" have earned him an indefinite block. - InvisibleSun 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block review requested: TheVidiot[edit]

TheVidiot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all,

Intertwined with the unable-to-edit-own-talk-page issue above, the OTRS queue recently received a series of emails from TheVidiot asking to be unblocked. Because the decision to block and unblock is entirely up to the Wikiquote community, I asked for permission to post his statement here, which he gave.

I would like to request a review of my account (TheVidiot), which was
recently blocked for a week, then indefinitely. Here is the sequence  

of events that let to the block:
1. I added a single quote to the Rush Limbaugh page, with a source.  

The quote was removed, and a notice was placed on the discussion page  

to not use “dubious sources.” I re-added the quote with a different  

source. The quote was removed, and my account was blocked for a week.

Let me reiterate: My account was blocked for one week because I posted  

a quote twice. I did nothing to violate Wikiquote policies. I was  

given no warning.
According to Wikipedia, here are the steps to deal with edits you  

disagree with:
a. Assume good faith.

b. Revert the quote and start a discussion on the Talk page.

c. File a notice about the edits.

d. Seek dispute resolution.

e. Suggest mediation.

f. Discuss with the user on their Talk page.

g. File a report if the user violates the 3RR.

h. File a report with an administrator.

i. File a request for comments.

j. Look for an admin to issue a warning.

k. Look for an admin to issue a temporary block.

The administrator (Cirt) skipped every avenue of resolution, and  

jumped directly to the most extreme resolution: blocking my account. I  

feel that this was unwarranted.
2. Seeking to understand why I had been blocked, I found I could not  

edit my own Talk page.
3. I emailed Cirt to ask why I had been blocked. I received no response.

4. When I was on a different computer, I posted an anonymous request  

about why I had been blocked. Cirt accused my of sockpuppetry, and  

without any warning I was blocked indefinitely.
To sum up: I was blocked for no reason, and when I tried to find out  

why I was blocked, my account was blocked indefinitely. I think this  

is abusive, against Wikiquote policies, and an extreme reaction when I  

did nothing to violate Wikiquote policies.
I would like my account to be reinstated, or at least have a  

discussion about why I was blocked.

Thank you,

The decision to unblock or leave blocked is entirely the Wikiquote community's; I will leave you guys to it :)

Regards, Daniel 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Already reviewed by admin admin BD2412, who said: I have reviewed and endorse this block. Pretty close to being a single-purpose POV account, flouted our policies, block evasion is just the final straw. That comment was made after TheVidiot (talk · contributions) performed socking and block evasion with the IP 17.224.39.234. Then, after that review by BD2412, TheVidiot (talk · contributions) chose not to wait for a response to his multiple emails to OTRS, but rather instead chose to perform block evasion, again, this time using IP 17.224.39.173. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed, and I have endorsed the block as well. — RyanCross (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too endorse the block. Tiptoety ^talk 05:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin endorse too. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with using the fact that somebody used a raw-IP login to complain about a block as a further offense to justify making the block indefinite. That puts blocked users in Kafkaesque complications. Dtobias 03:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as encouraging users to sock is not the method for requesting an unblock on this site. Currently, it is through OTRS. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that Cirt and I discussed this on my talk page, and Cirt agreed that it would be reasonable to review the block after a week and perhaps propose an alternative resolution. However, TheVidiot then continued making IP edits despite the ongoing block, which in my view wipes away any goodwill towards such a review. I would expect that the restoration of TheVidiot's editing privileges would be highly unlikely at this point, but any resolution leading to that outcome would require TheVidiot to demonstrate an understanding of the policies that got him in this situation in the first place. I'm not a fan if indefinite blocks for conduct short of persistent vandalism, but Cirt acted within his discretion, and TheVidiot is certainly not proving Cirt wrong. BD2412 T 04:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The atmosphere here seems to be highly authoritarian, with people being indef-blocked at the drop of a pin for the "offense" of refusing to kneel down and worship the authority figures here. Blocked users get bound and gagged, and if they make any attempt to speak afterward it's a further offense to justify their being blocked in the first place. Apparently, the proper attitude is for them to be thankful that their enlightened masters showed the wisdom to block them. Dtobias 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the same admin who blocked TheVidiot has also proposed above to allow blocked users to edit their own talk pages, in order to facilitate exactly the attempts to 'speak afterward' that you feel we are trying to suppress. This proposal has received the overwhelming support of admins on this project. Blocked users should not be editing from IP addresses (TheVidiot was initially blocked for a week, not indefinitely by the way), but we are trying to make it possible for them to object to the block or raise other issues on their own User talk pages. BD2412 T 22:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A belated endorsement of blocking and ticket closure from me. I've reviewed the ticket Daniel handled thoroughly. There are other two tickets created by the same users in both mails. In later created two threads, no other previous mail exchanges were mentioned. It is no helpful to solve the situation, hiding the history, and my additional favor to let them edit their talk through there accounts. Then previous discourses may be hopefully more obvious. --Aphaia 06:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review[edit]

I've given it some thought and as I was an involved admin in the cleanup of the page Rush Limbaugh, I've unblocked TheVidiot (talk · contributions) and Proabivouac (talk · contributions) and I will defer further admin review here to this board and to other admins. Also will defer to this board with regards to further blocks related to the cleanup of the page Rush Limbaugh, which could use additional attention from more admins. Cirt (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supported both their blocks in the first place, and still continue to do so. I feel that Cirt's involvement did not cloud his good judgment. So far, both users have socked to evade their block and Proabivouac even stated that if he did not get his way he would start outing people. I recommend that he be indef blocked. Such behavior should not be tolerated. Tiptoety ^talk 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cirt. Tiptoety, I did say that…after I was indefinitely blocked for no good reason. Isn't it somewhat unreasonable to expect people to continue to follow the rules of a project from which they've been banned? Conversely, so long as I'm allowed to participate here, I'll follow the rules, including that one (and may well just walk away and find something else to do.)Proabivouac 02:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works Proabivouac. Because you do not get your way does not mean you can just start outing people. May as well just walk away and find something else to do? Doubtful. Tiptoety ^talk 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoety, it doesn’t make sense to use socking after a block as justification for the block in the first place. It would be like sending someone to prison, then when he tries to escape, saying, “See? I told you he was a criminal! He tried to escape from prison!”

I have more thoughts on this, but I will save them for later. The Vidiot 04:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically the plot of Les Miserables, isn't it? Dtobias 12:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Les Miserables, Jean Valjean's initial offense is a genuine crime - stealing a loaf of bread. BD2412 T 13:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the ensuing situation reminds me a lot of how banned users are treated on wiki projects... he gets an excessively draconian penalty for his initial offense, with extenuating circumstances (his starving family) ignored, and then gets added penalties heaped on top of it for trying to escape; then, when he finally gets released years later, he still has a huge stigma from being an "ex-con", meaning that he is never treated fairly, everybody is looking for an excuse to put him back in prison, and he ends up being inclined to steal things every chance he gets because everybody treats him like a criminal anyway. Then he engages in sockpuppetry and ban evasion, by changing his name and going to a different town where nobody knows him... where he is quite successful until the people who are out to get him track him down anyway. Dtobias 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My initial crime was making an edit to Wikiquote that an administrator disagreed with. I posted a quote; the admin said it was a “dubious source.” So I found a different source for the same quote and reposted it; the quote was again removed, and I was blocked for a week. No warning, no discussion, no call for votes…just a straight block. I didn’t even violate the Three-Revert Rule, which is why I felt that the block, though apparently within administrator discretion, was excessively draconian. Wiki users should feel free to Be Bold, and not feel like they have to clear any edits through an admin first. The Vidiot 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I would honestly like to know what I initially did that was a violation of Wikiquote rules. BT2412, you said that I flouted policies, and that block evasion was the last straw; so what policies did I flout? The Vidiot 16:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We require reliable sources, and I don't think we've ever counted blog posts quoting secondhand sources as reliable sources. The fact that a blogger quotes a reporter as quoting another party does not reliably support the quote. Granted, many of our pages require an overhaul in this regard, but it is still our policy. Once you've been told that a source is unreliable for supporting a quote, why would you find an equally unreliable source to back reposting the same quote? BD2412 T 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because he didn’t say WHY the source was unreliable. The issue that I and other posters had is that we had to guess which sources Cirt deemed as “reliable.” I didn’t know the source was “equally unreliable,” because Cirt didn’t provide a way to determine reliability.

The whole point of the revision to the Rush Limbaugh page was that only secondary sources were valid for quotes from Limbaugh. In other words, it had to be a quote from Limbaugh that some other organization had cited. In this case, it was Rick Sanchez on CNN who quoted Limbaugh. Since I could not find a transcript from the show on CNN’s site, I provided a link from a different site, Media Research Center. Cirt decided that this was a “dubious source,” and deleted the quote. Note that he never said that the problem was that it was a tertiary source, only that the source itself was dubious (which, again, is up for some debate, but when people asked that question on the Talk page, he deleted the question).

So I said, fine. I looked for a different source, and found NewsBusters. Again, he never said anything about it being a tertiary source, only that Media Research Center was “dubious.” So I posted that source, he deleted it, and blocked me for a week.

I should also point out that both “dubious sources” included VIDEO from CNN of the quote in question, so technically the secondary source could have just been changed to CNN. But then, I wouldn’t want to be accused of citing CNN as a source, and linking to a MRC article.

And again, this could have all been discussed on the Talk page. The Vidiot 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reversion of edits by User:DTaylor101.[edit]

I have reverted a series of edits to various entries by User:DTaylor101 in which he added quotes by one Paul Udouj (a DJ who I would consider to be of dubious notability, based on the sources presented in support of his Wikipedia page). My reversion was based on the fact that the purported author is clearly a living person, and no sources were provided. I left the following comment on User:DTaylor101's talk page:

I have reverted your additions, as we now require that all quotes attributed to a living author be verified in print by a reliable source. This is both to protect living persons from having statements falsely attributed to them, and to insure that such quotes have been deemed sufficiently notable for a source to print.

It is my understanding that we as a community are in agreement on this principle. Please let me know if I am in error on this point. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your statement. Whether we have written it down yet or not, I understand it is now an accepted wisdom of the project for quotes taken from living people. --Aphaia 06:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed to make this update to our long-undeveloped policy at Wikiquote:Quotes by living persons. BD2412 T 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposed update. ~ UDScott 23:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and do it! :P Cirt (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Boldly done. BD2412 T 23:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

173.74.188.68[edit]

This IP needs to be blocked urgently as it is vandalising pages.--Ole.Holm 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki[edit]

Please see Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki. Cirt (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki refusing to restrict to one account during Vote of confidence[edit]

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In a post to Kalki (talk · contributions)'s user talk page, I requested that he restrict himself to usage of his main account during the Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki process. [58]
Kalki chose to reply, using a sock account, in which he stated his intention to engage in continued use of the openly revealed accounts
I requested a simple yes or no answer if Kalki would use his sock accounts during the Vote of confidence ongoing process [59]
Kalki's reply: Yes, I AM refusing to abide by your request...
I requested a second time, that Kalki not use sock accounts during the ongoing discussion about his usage of sock accounts [60].
Kalki again chose to use a sock account to reply, and refuse to the request [61].

Cirt (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of restriction[edit]

Proposed: Restrict Kalki to use of his main account and no socks, during ongoing discussion of his use of socks. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Support. As proposer. I think it only makes sense that during an investigation and community discussion of Kalki (talk · contributions) and his use of socks, that he be restricted to the use of his main account only during this ongoing process. Cirt (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Entirely reasonable request that while discussion of a disputed behavior is being carried out, that the behavior not be exhibited. The recalcitrance shown is ample evidence of unsuitability to hold 'crat and admin. ++Lar: t/c 12:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

As I had already agreed to the very reasonable request that I not use any UNIDENTIFIED alternate accounts during this period, I see this attempt to restrict my use of any alternate account, even for mundane and legitimate edits to articles as simply harassment, and an attempt to make an issue still in contention seem already decided. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current restriction is only during the ongoing Vote of Confidence about your usage of socks. Cirt (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I see this as simply a ploy to make my legitimate edits to pages using an openly declared account seem something that is innately unacceptable to most others, and I do not perceive that to be the case. There was certainly no need to revert legitimate edits to any pages I edited as Taliesin merely because you desired to try to treat them as something innately unacceptable. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, I agree with this comment by FloNight (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kalki's point that no manipulation can occur if the accounts are identified. BD2412 T 05:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of Kalki's comments is that the whole point of the using multiple accounts is to manipulate people's thinking by using accounts with meaningful names. This begs the question as to if the wiki way of doing formal or informal consensus building discussion works if people use multiple accounts to express their views. I'm leaning toward thinking that it does not work. FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One possible declaration in regard to the above assessment is that you actually intend to manipulate people's thinking with meaningful words. The implications are that my "manipulation" of people's attention, with names is somehow heinous rather than in many ways simply amusing and educational, and sometimes absurdly so. Manipulating perceptions is what is what ALL words ALWAYS do. That is what NAMES often do in rather peculiar ways.
Though a great deal of transparency in regard to motives and actual actions can be admirable, total transparency is impossible, and attempts at imposing it on others, or even oneself, usually disastrous.
I proceeded in honest intentions of seeking to post small little reminders to people of the noblest and worthiest sentiments expressed by people, appealing to their interest in a wide variety of ways, and was NOT doing so in promotion of myself in any way, but in the promotion of ideas which I honestly believe most people are very capable of finding admirable and worthy of consideration.
As I believe we are not and should not be constrained to simply mimicking and copying the policies developed at Wikipedia for the construction of and encyclopedia in our construction of a quote compendium, I actually have considered proposing that far more creative ways of presenting quotes remain available to people, and that there might even be links made in article space for cataloging and presenting links to user pages with the most interesting presentations of quotes, without actually cluttering up article space with many rather poorly developed experiments and efforts, which one could probably expect to be many. I am someone who feels many poor efforts should be tolerated for the sake of many interesting successes. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The Complete exchange, which Cirt continually seeks to reduce to very simplistic assessments favoring a position I reject is here:

I request that you please refrain from using sock accounts during the Vote of Confidence. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request includes all edits by the accounts in question, example [62]. Cirt (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have continued to use the Taliesin account prominently because it is one I consider poetically apt, and uncluttered with much of the "official" communications which has accumulated on this talk page. I am an advocate of poetic license to express oneself eloquently and artistically, and of the restriction of bureaucratic license or presumption of license to forbid or impede such expressions, without a clear mandate. My continued use of the openly revealed accounts, to which I am attaching tags identifying them as mine, is a part of my assertion that such freedom is a good thing, over-all, despite current attempts to minimize or possibly even eliminate it. ~ Taliesin 12:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had already agreed NOT to use any unrevealed recounts during this period of contentions, but I do wish to do work with at least a few of those which are openly revealed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I take it you refuse to abide by my above request? Yes or no answer please. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I AM refusing to abide by your request that I cease doing something that I do not perceive to be either mandated, nor in my own best interests to promise, AS IF I were acknowledging, or accepting that it should be mandated. I had already agreed, to FloNight, I believe, that I won't use any usernames that I don't openly reveal and mark as my own, and have already indicated I would continue to mark and confirm some accounts listed as my own. There are quite a few to go through, and I certainly didn't acquire them all in a short time, and it will take me time to mark them all properly.
I won't be able to respond to everything done here today, because I will probably be leaving at least a couple times for at least an hour or so each time, and am actually making some preparations to leave now, though I don't actually need to immediately. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask that you please use your main account only while Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki is ongoing. Please do not use sock accounts during this ongoing process. Cirt (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will request that you cease to harass me in the process of making LEGITIMATE edits with an IDENTIFIED alternate account. I have previously agreed to use ONLY identified alternate accounts in this period, and stated that I consider your request of not using any at all, even for legitimate edits, an unreasonable restraint upon my abilities to defy your suppositions and attempts to imply that any usage of alternate accounts is something forbidden or unethical, or done for sinister purposes. As I previously stated, I have no intentions of ceasing to use such an account, unless it is forbidden me by community consensus, or out of agreement with and respect for reasonable requests such as not to use any unidentified accounts during this time period. I have no intentions of complying with such presumptive "requests" to cease to use even identified accounts for legitimate edits, that are delivered AS IF they were backed by actual mandates of the community, by someone so obsessed with asserting that their position is certainly right, that you have already reverted several of my legitimate edits by declared alternate accounts to support that point. I reject your hypothesis and I denounce your actions. I know you are doing the same for mine, but I am not bound to comply with your expectations or desires in this period of contention. ~ Kalki, AKA Taliesin 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from this, similar rough and skewed summations were posted on the actual Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki page, which I had responded to, and several of my legitimate edits with the account Taliesin have been reverted, simply because they were made with that account. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki, a few points for you to consider. 1) The word "harassment" is too strong a word to use when describing Cirt's actions and comments. His actions are done entirely to help the Community not harm you. Even if you disagree with him, you need to assume good faith about this actions and comments. 2) My request for you to only edit with labeled alternative accounts was a bare minimum request made to keep you and your accounts from being blocked during the VoC. Based on my experience in this type of situation, I anticipated that further editing restriction beyond that one would be suggested by someone later. I would very much like for these to be requests agreed upon by you and interested editors rather than editing restrictions imposed on you. 3) The idea that you should be able to use multiple accounts in discussions to better express your ideas is a novel interpretation of policy related to user accounts. So, I don't find it surprising that people object to multiple accounts being used in the same discussion. I'm trying to be very open minded about your policy ideas, I find that aspect of the situation questionable myself.

I don't think that Cirt's request is unreasonable. But I understand that you see it differently. Is there a way that we can come to a compromise? Maybe you can use labeled alternative accounts to edit article space but not use them in WQ space or talkpages where discussions are happening? Then we can revisit the issue after the VoC closes.

Cirt, would that compromise work for now? Kalki? Anyone else have an opinion? FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I just checked in a few minutes ago and saw it. I will take into consideration your suggestions. I could probably agree to not deliberately using an account in any discussion, but I have already slipped up at least once or twice and done so accidentally, now that I am using them as identified accounts, and have far less concern about being identified. I had similarly slipped up on at least a couple occasions, long ago, which your investigations have revealed, during a time when I did not want them openly associated. At this point, now that they are associated, I actually primarily want to use a few of them to reveal certain things on their own talk pages, though I might occasionally be inclined to use them to edit articles and revert vandalism while I am doing this. I probably am done using Taliesin for perhaps a few days, but intend to use a few others, including some not yet revealed to indicate what I believe to be some important facts about matters. I hope no measures are taken to prevent this. I might actually be around for over an hour, but do intend to be leaving for about that long soon, and then eventually be gone for much of the remainder of the day. My plans for the day however might be subject to change for a number of reasons. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree to the above proposal as suggested by FloNight (talk · contributions), to restrict Kalki's use of sock accounts to only be used on article-space. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let's give it a little while longer to see if anyone else wants to comment, and for Kalki to see your reply and respond. Hopefully, we'll have an agreement soon and can archive the vote. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not yet posted in the Vote of Confidence because I have been waiting for Kalki to complete his arguments. As for this Proposal of Restriction, I have decided not to support or oppose it for the following reasons:
1) I agree with Lar that the proposal is an "entirely reasonable request that while discussion of a disputed behavior is being carried out, that the behavior not be exhibited." Therefore I am on the side of supporting it.
2) The proposal strikes me, all the same, as going about in a circle: it is an attempt to prevent someone from using multiple names while deciding whether he should be using multiple names. This strikes me as putting the cart before the horse.
3) Lastly, what would be the result of a decision in favor of the proposal? Would the sock accounts be blocked? We don't even know what all of them are. Would Kalki himself be blocked for not agreeing to comply? This would prevent him from taking any more part in his own Vote of Confidence. We have a proposal, then, which does not mention what would happen if it were defied. I'm reluctant to agree to a decision if I don't know the consequences.
I had chosen not to take part in formulating this Proposal of Restriction because I was concerned it would end up a distraction from the vote; and so it has proven. My own proposal, then, is this:
1) To Kalki: it is time, I would suggest, to complete your arguments in the Vote of Confidence.
2) To everyone else: could we not leave this proposal as moot, as the vote itself will resolve, among other things, the issue of an editor using multiple names? - InvisibleSun 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re InvisibleSun (talk · contributions), you make some good points above, I would say that the socks would be blocked if it were violated, but Kalki would not be blocked, so as to be able to participate in the Vote of Confidence. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am preparing to leave now for at least an hour or two, I probably will have much of today free from other concerns, and will be working on trying to finish gathering and organizing some of my primary arguments today, and trimming away much less significant observations from the remarks I had been preparing over recent days. During my travels, in response to ideas generated during these current contentions, I also made many significant audio recordings which I know I won't have time to fully review or transcribe today, but which I do expect to use to some extent in some of my other writings, so this period of contention has contributed at least some minor little expressions to the body of the general works I have been preparing for publication elsewhere, and whatever is decided here, I believe the controversy will have been of some benefit to others, even if I don't see how removing my admin abilities would be of clear service to this project. ~ 15:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now, I continue to work on my responses, and am not yet satisfied with my work. At this point I simply wish to I thank everyone who has not made a decision yet for remaining skeptical of the situations and of the worth of any of the assertions made, whether they be made by others or myself. Such skepticism as can increase awareness of the ways of wisdom, which is never either a blind optimism nor a blind pessimism in regard to anything, is an attitude I seek to promote. I must leave at least briefly and attempt to complete more things when I get back. One name I will further reveal at this point, if anyone is interested in looking at its activities, is one that I had intended to use far more prominently as an publicly unassociated identity, but see little point in it remaining such now : Agnostic Gnostic (talk · contributions). ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
@FloNight (talk · contributions) - It appears from this latest use of a sock account by Kalki, to post to a non-article-space page, that he is not even willing to agree to your proposed compromise. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are plainly far too eager to perceive imaginary infractions even where nothing of the sort occurred. I clearly posted that statement revealing my account "Agnostic Gnostic", AS Kalki, not AS Agnostic Gnostic. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I apologize. Cirt (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archived due to closure of Wikiquote:Votes of confidence/Kalki. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock ring spamming links to The Wickedictionary[edit]

Prior thread on this = Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#The_Wickedictionary.

Accounts involved

195.15.22.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Crackaddict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Suchlists (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Dozensuits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
CransMontana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Bankstaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Chestneed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Stingray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
217.41.235.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
203.37.104.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This needs checkuser investigation please. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the link itself is now blacklisted. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suchlists = CransMontana = Bankstaken.

Chestneed = Stingray

I just emailed checkuser-l the other equivalents about IPs while considering them not wise to be displayed here.--Jusjih 20:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So five of the ten are socks. What of the others? Also, given that they are all presumably at a university isn't it likely thay'd be using the same computers?--Ole.Holm 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK can be applied here. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very grsteful for Jusjih's views please.--Ole.Holm 19:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to change existing blocks of these IPs or usernames.--Jusjih 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being disruptive?[edit]

I have been told by an administrator that I am being disruptive for not supporting his view that the site of a senior professor at a prominent university is spam. I can find no WQ policy that I am contravening. However, if it is the consensus of admins that I am being disruptive, I apologise and will cease forthwith. Please advise.--Ole.Holm 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued postings, on multiple different pages, in support of sockpuppets and spamming, is the disruptive behavior. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed no support for sockpuppets; all I did was ask for clarification of the evidence, as every editor has the right to do. As for spam, the community has not decided that Wickedictionary is a spam site. If and when it does, I shall abide by their decision, but until then I have the right to discuss it.--Ole.Holm 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spam site Wickedictionary was already posted to this Admin noticeboard over a month ago. There were no objections, and in fact support instead from admin and checkuser Aphaia (talk · contributions). Cirt (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I do not consider presenting arguments on community forums "disruptive behavior", as for the block on Wickedictionary as a "spam site", I don't see that it is entirely appropriate, as it is a link provided at Wikipedia, as an associated site of Derek Abbott, who has published a work with a glowing foreword by Roger Penrose, who has been acknowledged by many, including Stephen Hawking and Arthur C. Clarke as one of the more advanced living mathematicians and theorists on many subjects. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki, the link is only being used on this project as spam. And the source itself is unreliable - it is a wiki with no sourcing of the quotes there whatsoever. The continued posting of this issue by Ole.Holm (talk · contributions), over and over and over again in support of this spam site - is indeed becoming disruptive. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from the edit history of the Wickedictionary that, with the exception of three postings on June 20, 2009, all edits are by "Dabbott," who is Derek Abbott himself. Many of the quotes are footnoted. Some of the quotes are by Abbott; most of them are by other people. As for Abbott's own quotes, I would say that Wickedictionary is a reliable source, as he created them for that article and posted them there. As for other people's quotes, the Wickedictionary would be irrelevant. When Abbott quotes, for example, from Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, then it is The Devil's Dictionary and not Wickedictionary that is the source (and after verifying, naturally, that Bierce was accurately quoted). Whenever another author's quote is unsourced in Wickedictionary, we would not, of course, wish to use it. I would conclude, then, that the only use of the Wickedictionary for Wikiquote purposes is to cite some of Abbott's own quotes; and for that aim it is acceptable and should not be blocked. I would also agree with Kalki that Ole.Holm's questions and remarks are appropriate. - InvisibleSun 05:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree even that Wickedictionary is a reliable source for quotes from Abbott. That is akin to saying that anyone can set up their own website, make up whatever quotes they like, and then come and place them here. What makes such quotes noteworthy? Cirt (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worthiness of the quotes would be dependent upon the notability of the person quoted. Anyone who appears to be unnotable would be speedily deleted or, in some instances, given a Prod or VfD. I would argue, as in the VfD for Abbott, that his notability has been established. - InvisibleSun 13:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with InvisibleSun's assessments. Though not personally familiar with his work before the current controversies, what I have read by him and about him since they began has been impressive. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 13:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, user Ole.Holm (talk · contributions) is not being disruptive, but rather is to be commended for taking an interest in community affairs. Since coming to Wikiquote just a month ago, this user has been very active, with some 400 diverse, good quality edits in article space and about 60 in project and talk spaces. Raising substantive questions on what are clearly borderline issues is a Good Thing™, especially for a newcomer. The points raised are germane, and include issues I would raise myself. They are well stated, and do not begin to approach the level of argumentum ad infinitum or argumentum verbosium that could be considered disruptive.
Administrator Cirt (talk · contributions) has valid concerns about the issues under discussion, but I see no justification for taking a threatening stance toward this discussant. Please do not bite the newcomers out of zeal for defending the wiki, or defending particular positions. ~ Ningauble 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay understood, thanks. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Comment removed [63]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Christmas Carol[edit]

Just to alert all the Admins here there is more than one Christmas Carol articles like the Christmas Carol book, the 2000th film and the 2009th Christmas carol film.(StarWarsFanBoy 05:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Spam filter[edit]

Michael Jackson has one quotation in its attributed section. That quotation comes from an audio interview that is available on an external web site, but I am told that sportsinterview.com triggers the spam filter. Why is that? 24.17.110.94 06:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, that domain is inactive. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation link works, even if there is no home page. 24.17.110.94 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See http://sportsinterview.com/ Cirt (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the site refused because it has been linkfarmed, even though the specific page I'm trying to link to still exists. Is there anything I can do? 24.17.110.94 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the result for the Main Page, the site itself is probably no longer maintained or reliable. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous quote addition[edit]

I am a new user, but have a quote I would like added to the anonymous section:

"I haven't lied to you about that in a long time."

Unlike most pages this page has no edit link. Is there another way to add? or am I just not allowed being a new member? Either way, the quote is hilarious. I actually heard it said on the telephone repeatedly.

Thanks

Quote of the Day[edit]

So now that we no longer have Kalki as an admin, will someone else be able to take up the mantle of handling the QOTD chores? I myself do not have the time to do so with regularity. I am sure there may be other holes left by Kalki's absence, but this is the most glaring. ~ UDScott 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually taken into account the likelihood of losing in my efforts to escape from some of the predicaments that had arisen, and today have already been at work on some measures by which I could continue in most of these tasks, though I would have preferred they not be any more hurried, inhibited or interrupted at all, than they previously had been.

After finishing up on some more urgent matters I turned my attention to the next several days of QOTD work here, and taking into account the current standings I have prepared and am preparing some image and quote layouts. If my assessments of current standings are still to be accepted, and things do not change drastically on some the dates, I expect the work which I have been able to do today, in the last few hours, will probably hold up for the rest of this week, and I will attempt to apply what skills and knowledge I have of images available on the commons to making graphic selections for the rest of December in coming days and weeks, "surfing" ahead of some deadlines, in time to prevent myself from being blocked by the rolling protection of some of the pages, and thus allowing these selections to be viewed for at least 3 days prior to their actual use. I have also prepared some image layouts for the next two days, which unfortunately I cannot add to the pages myself at this point. The rather tedious daily updates to the several different archival records of the QOTD I am also willing to do, if no one else desires to take this task on, but for me to do this the page protection on Wikiquote:Quote of the Day, Wikiquote:Quotes of the Year, and Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Complete list will have to be reduced from admins-only, at which I had previously placed it, to "confirmed users only".

The sense of urgency that had existed in making some attempts to explain or indicate my perspectives on many things here has passed, and I intend to refrain from explaining much more than I feel I actually have to, but I will indicate some of the reasoning involved in some of these 2 selections, which I hope others will find acceptable. There are a few other images I had considered using in the second slot as a good one, but which I don't feel to be so decorous or powerfully apt. I believe that these images and quotes also relate well to the previously selected QOTD's for December 1 & 2.

The page for December 3 could have this added to it:

{| style="background: {{{color}}}" | align=center | [[File:Love01.jpg|144px|right|]] | align=center | | align=center | He who wants to persuade should put his trust, not in the right argument, but in the right word. <p> ~ [[Joseph Conrad]] ~ | align=center | | align=center | [[File:Ankh1.png|77px|right|]] |}

In order to display this:

He who wants to persuade should put his trust, not in the right argument, but in the right word.

~ Joseph Conrad ~

The ankh has long been taken as a symbol for both Life and Truth, and thus I feel the combination of images and symbols evoking the statement "Love Life/Truth" in relation to a quote on the act of trusting in the right word, as extraordinarily apt. I myself persist in my capacity and will to Love Truth and Life itself, in ALL their forms, even those which seem to be most deficient, shallow, or ignorant and confused about many vitally important matters, from my rather complex and often rather intensely involved perspectives.

For December 4 I have prepared:

{| style="background: {{{color}}}" | align=center | [[File:Jean-Baptiste Regnault - La Liberté ou la Mort.JPG|144px|right|]] | align=center | | align=center | That there should one Man die ignorant who had capacity for Knowledge, this I call a tragedy. <p> ~ [[Thomas Carlyle]] ~ | align=center | | align=center | [[File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 063.jpg|144px|right|]] |}

That there should one Man die ignorant who had capacity for Knowledge, this I call a tragedy.

~ Thomas Carlyle ~

I thought the image of Liberty or Death, and the famous Rembrandt image of the rather mysterious and variously interpreted account of Jacob wrestling with the Angel to be very apt in this case.

I am making a few more selections for some of the days ahead, but will be able to post these myself to the appropriate pages. I will proceed in the far more tedious task of updating the formatting of many of the QOTD ranking pages for December and the other months, to the extent I have the time in the days and weeks to come. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt has now taken care of the above 2 dates. I will attempt to post some selections from the top ranked quotes at least 2 or 3 days ahead of the rolling protection of pages from this point on. Some reduction of the protection levels I had previously set for the 3 archive pages mentioned above will still have to be done, if I am to regularly update those, and I expect that there will still occasionally be occasions such as the death of notable figures where the pre-chosen selections should probably be over-ridden by some admin with some notable quotes of such figures. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Kalki be allowed to continue to work directly on QotD by having the relevant page protections changed to "block new and unregistered users." - InvisibleSun 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully support this change. ~ UDScott 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, unless there is a need to full prot them in the future. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine. Nobody else fools with these pages. ~ Ningauble 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Curious as to how Kalki has been able to edit cascade-protected pages like Wikiquote:Quote of the day/December 7, 2009, as the protection is still the same at Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Protect? Cirt (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked in and saw your query. As I stated above, I have begun posting a selection from the highest ranking quotes several days in advance now, whereas previously I had usually waited to the last hour or so. This allows me to post a selection before the protection goes into affect, which occurs 2 days prior to the actual QOTD selection. I believe this actually may have been put into affect by someone else, during or just after or before a previous period when I knew that I would be out of contact with the internet for over a day at a time. I think the 2 day prior protection is a good one — as having no more admin duties here, it has actually made me much less concerned with checking in on things as regularly as I previously did, and I feel I can safely ignore things for over a full day at a time now. Though I of course revert any vandalism I notice, and post appropriate warnings and notices, I no longer intend to patrol things here quite so frequently as I previously did. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. :) Cirt (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As no one seems to object to the suggestions, I am requesting that the protection now be reduced on Wikiquote:Quote of the Day, Wikiquote:Quotes of the Year, and Wikiquote:Quote of the day/Complete list, so that confirmed users can edit these. I am busy on a few other things right now, but if their protection is reduced, I will be able to fully update them sometime within the next day or so. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 03:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed the protection levels for those pages. - InvisibleSun 04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will begin doing updates on these soon. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago I missed the deadline on the rolling protection for the 13 December 2009 page, so an admin will need to post the material at Wikiquote talk:Quote of the day/December 13, 2009 into the project page. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requests (15)[edit]

Lord Deskana (talk · contributions)
Slavic Dodoria (talk · contributions)
God! I'm coming! (talk · contributions)
Harry the cable guy (talk · contributions)
Simplebloodfest398 (talk · contributions)
Zarbon (talk · contributions)
Recoome (talk · contributions)
TouchMyPeenie89 (talk · contributions)
Col. Sanders (talk · contributions)
Dwight Apple (talk · contributions)
USERCONFIRMED (talk · contributions)
Where's Zarbon? (talk · contributions)
Zarbon VS. Wiki-star (talk · contributions)
Deskana VS. Wiki-star (talk · contributions)
Wiki-star VS. everyone else (talk · contributions)

Thanks! ~ UDScott 15:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is banned on enwiki. Lord Deskana isn't me (obviously) since my SUL is Deskana. --Deskana 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banned on enwiki under what username(s) ? Cirt (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recoome, I'm guessing. I doubt it's Zarbon, since he's not blocked. --Deskana 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Recoome and Zarbon were added to this list by the impostor Lord Deskana. ~ Ningauble 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's User:Wiki-star who is behind all this nonsense. I thought that he would stop but after five years he is still causing trouble. Zarbond

Several other accounts were created today in the same pattern of harassment. Any chance for an IP block in this case? ~ Ningauble 20:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser requests (4)[edit]

I would like to request a check for the following editors:

Users can now edit their own talk page while blocked[edit]

Users can now edit their own talk page while blocked. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive IP 93.100.51.148[edit]

93.100.51.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Disruptive IP, please block. I am holding off as I was involved in improving the page it is vandalizing. Cirt (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IP did it again, I blocked for one day. Any admin feel free to please review. Cirt (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

83.149.3.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - blocked this one, and extended block on the first. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a case of inappropriately removing content for POV reasons, plus incivility, followed by edit-warring with multiple admins – a blockworthy scenario. However, I notice that nobody sent a {{remove}}, {{test2a}}, or other warning about conduct, and the first direct communication with the user was a blocking notice. This seems less than ideal. I think it wise, even though it is often futile, to demonstrate good will by at least inviting someone to understand that we are not being entirely arbitrary. Blocking without warning might best be reserved for cases of pattern vandalism. ~ Ningauble 15:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, very good point. Cirt (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for unblock[edit]

Category:Requests for unblock

New category created, could use some help making sure the process works. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IP request in here now. Cirt (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would deny the request for failing to address the reason for the block, but IP 71.107.175.58 does not appear to be blocked locally or globally. (I can't tell if there is a range block because the rangeblock finder is not working.) The IP has no other history at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble 16:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to point out that we would need to sort out a procedure for this before rolling it out, but I never got around to it before the discussion was archived. I will definitely not have time to research the MediaWiki components & etc. that are involved until next year. One preliminary question that comes to mind: why is Unblock-auto is in main-namespace rather than template-namespace? ~ Ningauble 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that part, thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to review an {{unblock}} request here, but found the withinmentioned template {{unblock reviewed}} does not exist. At this point I suggest that some of those who were eager to roll this out either implement it more fully or else roll it back. As it stands now it is just an attractive nuisance for childish vandals. ~ Ningauble 18:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Aspus[edit]

Could someone block Marcus Aspus (talk · contributions) for vandalism? Gordonofcartoon 10:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cirt (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx. Gordonofcartoon 04:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Vandalism[edit]

Please help. I am currently edit warring with an obvious vandal. Please check the article edit history to see the vandalism that is occurring right now by this vandal: Black Frieza, of which I have grown very tired from reverting. - Zarbon 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am being met with a great amount of vandalism from this obvious troublemaker, Black Frieza. Will someone please protect the articles so they are not continuously vandalized. Please help. - Zarbon 01:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey! i am not a vandal. Drini told me himself. Black Frieza

And since nothing is being done to stop this vandalism, another vandal-only account, JuicyOne19 is doing the same exact vandalism as Black Frieza. This is why I suggest that these articles be protected. - Zarbon 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of getting involved in an already tangled situation: while the sock activity and insults are unacceptable, at least some of these disputed edits are not vandalism and appear justified - particularly the removal of unsourced quotes. These days it's the convention per Wikiquote:Limits on quotations#Sourced vs. unsourced quotes to remove unsourced quotes to Talk, pending sourcing. And even misattributed ones require citation (i.e. to identify real origin or notable sighting). The wholesale trimming of biosquibs looks definitely justified: that for Thomas Jefferson is a good example of appropriate biographical detail.

As to the Dragonball editing warring, much of the disagreement appears to be over wording that differs in different dubs. Since nobody is specifying which dub they're working from, it's impossible for outsiders to tell which edits are "correct" and which "vandalism". Gordonofcartoon 10:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other party in the dispute should not be resorting to socking. This is extremely disruptive. Cirt (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed 100%. Nevertheless, the substance of most of the edits appears valid. Zarbon's articles do need attention. Gordonofcartoon 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the action called stop the Vandalism because this so called vandalism keeps persisting for many days now.(StarWarsFanBoy 06:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

When it comes to valid sourcing, I am constantly in the process of locating proper sources for much of the material I have submitted, so as not to maintain the quotes in the unsourced section. However, if necessary, I will move some of the unsourced material to the talk pages until verifiable sources are found, although I am sure I can locate the sources for the unsourced material sooner or later. However, the unsourced sections should not be removed altogether like much of the vandalism has been attributed towards, but merely moved to the talk pages for further sourcing. - Zarbon 07:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above - here's the link again to Wikiquote:Limits on quotations#Sourced vs. unsourced quotes ("See Wikiquote:Sourcing for guidelines on sourced quotes. Unsourced quotes will be removed from all articles) - it's now standard practice to shift unsourced quotes to Talk pending sourcing. Gordonofcartoon 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]