Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/032

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Semi-protection for Donald Trump[edit]

Given that Trump is incredibly controversial, vandalism comes daily. I think semi-protection is in order. Thanks, hiàn 18:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just provided that page protection to auto-confirmed users for a span of 3 years. ~ Kalki·· 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Please block User:Risto hot sir[edit]

For his removal of perfectly valid categories without explanation, and edit warring, here, here and here (and in many other pages). ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC) And for his refusal to listen to other users, instead insulting them in order to defend his policy violations. [1] - J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What the hell! Some categories like "Americans" and "Authors" are really useless. DanielTom has no idea of the big picture. Believe or not, I'm the expert in this field.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The purpose of categories is to sort articles. If someone is an author, a Wikiquote visitor should be able to find him listed among the people at Category:authors. - J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"Authors" is the category worth nothing.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
What makes it worthless? Suppose someone wants to find quotes from/about authors. Wouldn’t it be helpful if there was a category? J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's just as usable as "people".--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That's just your opinion. Many people we quote, like some artists and religious leaders, never wrote anything. "Authors"/"writers" categories are used extensively on Wikipedia and other sister projects. You should be blocked for continually removing valid categories without previous discussion (and for edit warring) against consensus. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with DanielTom. This isn’t the first time that Risto hot sir has refused to cooperate with other users. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I've edited thousands of categories without anyone complaining but you. If some idiots don't understand, what can I do?--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that your only reply is to call us idiots does not bode well for you. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)'
Who's the idiot? The texts tell that.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The idiot is the one who thinks that “author” and “people” are synonymous. The idiot is the one that thinks that 102 articles are a brief excerpt. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Let's think Barack Obama. Hawaii was not the most important place in his career, it was definetily Chicago.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but he was born in Hawaii, and that means that he is from Hawaii.
(definition of “from”)
1.
indicating the point in space at which a journey, motion, or action starts.
"she began to walk away from him"
2.
indicating the point in time at which a particular process, event, or activity starts.
"the show will run from 10 to 2".
The start of a person is their birth, therefore the “People from...” category should tell where they were born and nothing else. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 02:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Some essential places can be told if the birth place ain't enough.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but say it in the intro, not in the category section. Saying that someone is from a place where they are not from is lying. This is why users want you blocked. You refuse to listen to others, and when confronted with logical explanations for why what you are doing is wrong, you resort to insult instead of agreeing that you made a mistake.
Administrators, if you are reading this, please look here to see all the places where he has done this. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The city where a person was born should be first, possible other states after that. This is not Wikipedia, and there you can search more specific information just clicking once.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the categories, isn't to display information. They are there to sort the articles, and in this case, the category, "People from..." is sorting them by place of birth, not by major place in a person's life. There is no way to argue against this, unless you disagree with the definition of the word "from". J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Disagree. Let's see what other editors write.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Who made you the authority on the definition of English words? Right now, that right belongs to the Oxford Dictionary. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I was born in Seinäjoki, but if someone now asks where I'm from it's Lahti. Do New Yorkers really read Oxford Dictionary?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Oxford is the official authority on the English language, regardless of whether anyone in New York reads it. I personally use it many times when I'm looking up words, although I also use Webster's. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 23:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
But it's posh?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's a dictionary. The meaning of words remain the same. American English, and British English are different dialects of the same language. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 00:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@Risto hot sir:: Please try using edit summaries, or I cannot easily support your edits. Please be civil by not calling anyone "idiot" or I will have to consider blocking that I do not really want to--Jusjih (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC).

User:MonsterHunter32's massive censorship of sourced quotes without discussion[edit]

I have alerted about this problem already here Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#User:MonsterHunter32 and at Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 (where most of the censored quotes are listed) but it didn't help.

The user MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has:

  • MonsterHunter32 edits almost only consist of censoring and deleting my additions, or those of others he considers "biased", most of them without ANY discussion on the talkpage, without moving the censored quotes to talk, and with very poor excuses (like that he only needs to "explain" his mass-blanking of many quotes in the same edit in his edit summary)
  • He refuses to discuss to discuss his deletions on talk, and just continues edit-warring.
  • MonsterHunter32 has admitted that he is "monitoring me constantly". That is called stalking and is extremely disruptive.
  • MonsterHunter32 has done numerous personal attacks, baiting and attacking me and others for my or their alleged personal beliefs "in favour of Hinduism" "or in favour of Hindus", using religious or political smears against me and others. As Kalki has said in one of the deletion nominations it seems that MH is acting "because the creator of the page is disliked" by him.
  • He not only continuously refuses to discuss the removals at talk and to move the quotes to talk, as was asked to him many times by multiple users, he even deleted my article talkpage discussions and quotes (that were moved by me) to the article talkpage.

It was agreed with and told to him by multiple editors many many times that the rule from Template:Remove is valid and must be observed by him:

  • All deleted or blanked quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.

However, MonsterHunter continues to completely ignore this, and continues with his censorship without discussion. He was warned dozens of times, in talkpage discussion, at Vandalism in Progress and other places, by other users including UDScott and DanielTom, but he just ignores the warnings. Other users have also said that "MonsterHunter32 is being extremely annoying and disruptive".

  • For example, on Swami Vivekananda and Historical negationism he completely ignored the discussion I started on the talkpage and just reverted again. [2] [3] without bothering to reply to the discussion I started.
  • On Aurangzeb he ignored that the article was marked as "inuse" and reverted all my edits back to "his" censored version, deleting many (more than 10 quotes) in one go without any discussion at all by him on the talkpage of any of the deleted quotes. His edit summary was also misleading as I was not edit-warring and he didn't restore quotes, he just reverted back to his censored version.
  • He continues the same behaviour at other articles like Muhammad bin Qasim and others, where he continues to delete many quotes in one go and refuses to even move quotes to talkpage with full reasoning. It is me who has started a talkpage discussion again but he is not replying, just reverting. --Jedi3 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I was originally under the impression that to take part in this argument would require extensive research. I started by looking at Monsterhunter’s edits. It did not take long to indentify a general theme. He appears to be blanking large selections of quotes, with the poor justification that he was fixing the articles so that they would have a neutral point of view. However, that did not seem to be the case. Even if it was true, I don’t see why people that claim is important. Wikiquote serves as a site that collects quotes from reliable sources, and if the people being quoted were biased, that doesn’t mean the quote should be removed. If he feels that Jedi3 is adding too many of these quotes, than he may “combat” it by adding other quotes that he feels are appropriate. Edit-warring is not the answer. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, on policies and guidelines about quotes it is written that, Wikiquote is about notable quotations. If you don't believe me I'll cite them right here. He's even added quotes that are not related to the topic. Even non-notable authors can be allowed here per guidelines. Anyone can make a quote and it can be sourced. I can make one right here.
My problem is Jedi3's consistent disruptive behaviour where he keeps inserting whatever he wants edit-warring instead of providing any legitimate reasons. I don't oppose quotes with any kind of view whether negative or positive. I have added quotes with opposite views as well. What I simply oppose is Jedi3 disrupting because of his own views. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Since when do users need to add an explanation for why they are adding quotes? Explanations are needed to remove quotes. If a quote is from a notable person, and has a reliable source, you can’t take I down just because you disagree with the views expressed by the quote. “Wikiquote is a free online compendium of sourced quotations from notable people and creative works...” ~Main Page~ J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
J.A.R.N.Y You should read the policies. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced.
WQ:Q#Notability of author or work factor - "Notability of the author is not required for a quote to be included in a page on a theme. It is the quote itself that must be notable."
Template:Fame - "Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote exists for the collecting of notable quotations of famous people and famous works, not for the posting of quotations of people not yet famous in some field."
Do note none of them say just about anything because it is sourced. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Quotes need to be notable, not just about anything. This is a website only for notable quotes. That said, I haven't opposed discussion over the quotes with Jedi3. Problem is, Jedi3 either keeps on making false claims about what his quotes are despite knowing what he is saying is false, and making deliberate false claims is a major violation. Or he stops discussing abruptly at the talk pages. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jedi3 wrongly keeps claming Template:Remove doesn't allow for removal of quotes and mandates moving and discussion. But I found out he hasn't read it properly. Templat:Remove itself says the quotes can be removed with edit summaries. Moving and discussing is required in almost all cases. It says: Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should almost always be moved to the Talk page with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

Despite moving and discussing not being mandatory in every case, I've often tried to discuss and move one article at a time but Jedi3 keep son edit-warring over one quote. SO HOW WILL I GET TIME FOR OTHER QUOTES? SO while he claims I am "not moving and discussing", he forgets that i can't do everything at once and the major cause is his disruption asides from being humanely impossible to discus everything at once. He's a vandal who's making up claims like he did abut Template:Remove who needs to be immediately blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MonsterHunter32 is using socks to manipulate discussions and votes for deletion[edit]

MonsterHunter32 is using sockpuppets to manipulate discussions and votes for deletion. At many discussion pages, and several times, in discussion with admins and with editors, MH32 has been trying to prove his point by referring to a page and a sentence at Wikiquote:Wikiquote that one of his socks manipulated some days ago. See this edit by his sock Beefybufoon.

See the article history https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Wikiquote&action=history

See for example here User_talk:UDScott#Jedi3's_disruptive_edits (in discussion with UDScott) or [Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:MonsterHunter32's_massive_censorship_of_sourced_quotes_without_discussion here in a discussion with JARNY] (and many other places, in discussions with other admins and editors) where MH32 is using the manipulated page and manipulated sentence as a "proof". He is referring to the manipulated page and sentence for example here "Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced." or here: "J.A.R.N.Y You should read the policies. Wikiquote:Wikiquote - "Wikiquote is an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations." Note it doesn't say simply sourced.".

He used the manipulated sentence and page as "proof" for his arguments here:

He has done the same in discussions with other admins, and with others users.

So he is quoting the page he manipulated with his other sock previously as proof in his discussions.

I am sure this is a sock of MH32 and I can provide evidence to admins of this.

So when he tries to make a point by referring to a page he modified with one of his socks, that is really very dishonest. But this is just the same kind of misrepresentations that he has always been displaying.

On the Votes for Deletion pages, and especially at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Varanasi, MonsterHunter32 and some IPs made the same vote with very similar arguments. Previously, and especially at that time, MonsterHunter32 was editing with IPs from the same region also. These edits also made very similar edits like MH32 at wikiquote (and at wikipedia). It very much seems that the IPs and MH32 are connected. I can provide more information if needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jedi3: please report that here. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
DanielTom, Thanks. I have made a report. --Jedi3 (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway forget it. His frivolous complaint has already been rejected. Jedi3 has been using all kind of tactics to disrupt me. Not just hone complaint, but all of his complaints have been only motivated because he could never counter what i said about his actions. If I wanted, i could have complained Jedi3 long ago at various places. Regardless of his continuous disruptions which i showed, admins don';t bother to take actions. Some say they are too busy, others don't seem bothered. It is clear complaining has become useless and admins won't take action. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

MH32[edit]

Above I have said I will comment more later. But since it seems that MH32 said the truth when he told admins and others that he quit [4], I will add only a few points (but will expand if necessary).

Please see this table for a summary of some of the steps I have taken for dispute resolution.

Action Jedi Comments
Asking admins about observing rules, especially also Template:Remove. I did ask admins to confirm that Template:Remove should be observed by MH32 and should be enforced, to which UDScott replied "I agree that prior to removal, since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed."
Notifying admins of edit warring despite warnings and notifications about observance of rule (discussed above) and asking admins to enforce rules. I did do that. And I asked on UDScotts talkpage "What else can I do if he refuses any meaningful collaboration, consensus seeking and discussion?"
Notifications to MH32 on his talkpage I gave many notifications.
Using edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions) I did use edit summaries (in addition to talk page discussions). See also please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes. I did use article talkpage to discuss deleted quotes.
Moving quotes to talk per Template:Remove After MH32 refused to do it in almost all cases, despite being asked so many times, I moved quotes to talk for him.
Applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion I did apply Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion
Asking UDScott what happens if MonsterHunter32 continues censorship and edit-warring. [5] And asking admins that they should enforce the rules per Template:Remove, and that if MH32 continues to refuse to observe Template:Remove, he should be blocked, or the page should be protected. On 22 March I asked UDScott if what happens if MonsterHunter continues with his edit-warring and with the massive censorship of sourced quotes without moving the quotes to talk and without giving full reasoning for the censorship, as told to him is required just before and so many times before by multiple users.
Explaining all edits and restorations on the talkpage (following Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion) Jedi explained all edits on the talkpage. On many articles, MonsterHunter32 did not even once use the talkpage (including at Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim, Talk:Swami Vivekananda, Talk:Historical negationism). In other cases, where he used the talkpage, he did not give full reasoning why he removed the censored quotes. Only in very few cases did he address SOME (not all) of the censored quotes on the talkpage of the article. He used poor excuses like that explaining the deletion of sometimes 10 or more quotes in the same article with 3 word edit summaries is enough. But he was told please don't put elaborate comments in edit summaries; put them on the talk page instead. Edit summaries are not considered reading material (another comment to MH32 from another editor)
Asking the community for opinions. I did ask the community for opinions and comments, see Admin noticeboard and many other places. Jedi: "I am asking the community to comment about the censorship of this user that I have already alerted about here Talk:India#Censorship_of_sourced_quotes_by_User:MonsterHunter32 and at other places, but it didn't help. What should be done about the continued massive removal of sourced quotes by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) when he refuses to even move the quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning for each quote as was asked by multiple users many many times? [6]
Asking UDScott again what happens if MH32 again refuses to agree on the rule based on Template:Remove. Also asking UDScott to please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes it. Also asking to please let me know if admins have a different interpretation of any of it.[7]
Notifying MH32 again that the rule must be observerd by him You have been notified of this rule dozens of times and you have chosen to ignore it dozens of times. But if you do not observe this, you will be blocked. Previous time he deleted the notification. This time he didn't delete it, but he ignored it again, as he also ignored your warnings.
Notifying UDSCott that MH32 has continued edit-warring, without reverting MH32 again. Jedi said "You said, I agree that prior to removal (by MonsterHunter32), since there is disagreement regarding quotes, they should be moved to the talk page where they could be discussed. Observing this rule above based on Template:Remove is the bare minimum, but it will not solve the tendentious edit warring of MonsterHunter32:"
Notifiying MH32 that he must stop the edit-warring Jedi made again many notifications.[8] [9] [10] But each time MH32 ignored it and just continued.

Other editors and me have previously told MonsterHunter32 many times that the following rule based on Template:Remove should be strictly observed by him. Admisn like UDScott have also previously agreed with this:

  • All quotes removed by User:MonsterHunter32 must always be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept and/or restored.

This really is the bare minimum that must be enforced if necessary by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion or by page protection. If MonsterHunter32 as a rule continues to refuse to do this, I don't see how any meaningful discussion of the deleted quotes is possible at all.

Please note that this was asked to him dozens of times, and dozens of times he continues to ignore it.

Can you please help ensure that MonsterHunter32 observes this? He has been told this dozens of times by multiple users, but I will notify him again about this on his talkpage (my last notification was promptly deleted by him). If he starts edit warring again without observing this rule, he should be blocked, or at least the page be protected.

Please let me know if anybody has a different interpretation of any of the above. Thanks. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3 The only one censoring is you. Status quo doesn't mean edit-warring. There is no justification for an edit-war. Remember that clearly
Anyway The admins have already told us to avoid each other. And as I said I would quit of action isn't taken action against you. The constant back and flrth is becoming a harassment.

There is no point in fighting further as admins won't take action even after anyone's behaviour is complained.

And no I'm not censoring, I never remove any quote that i notable and memorable. It is you who is censoring actions that act against your disruptive actions.
The first bare minimum is don't edit-war. You will never fulfil that and admins don't take action. So it doesn't matter.
Now I could show that the only one culpable here is you. Let's stop wasting time. Do what you want instead of repeating your claims here or there. If you haven't read my comments, I already said I'm quitting. Have a nice day. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I agree it is best to avoid each other. This will be my last post about it if you stop following me and removing my additions in the same manner like previously. And since what you said, we can close the discussion. Have a nice day. --Jedi3 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine. As admins have said to avoid each other, it is best not to interfere in each other's edits anymore or edit-war and it is best to avoid any interaction. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Jedi3's socks and disruptions[edit]

I am not using any socks which Jedi3 keep sclaiming when he has nothing else to do and no reason to justify his quotes. Jedi3 keeps blaming me. But he and DanielTom have an oddly similar behaviour, edit-warring for no reason that too over a petty dispute. Oddly similar right-wing view Also I am not Beefybufoon. If you don't believe you can check my IP.

But Jedi3 should be himself checked. He gives the same reasoning of making every quote notable under false pretenses, or claiming I'm doing "censorship". Jedi3 refuses to cooperate just like DanieTom did at here.

Also Template:Remove is not a quote. So doesn't matter. Regardless I've discussed, but it's becoming difficult due to Jedi3's disruptions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reverting like that, especially vandalism or what appears to be attempts at censorship, is common practice in Wikiquote. That said, if you believe Jedi3 and I are somehow related (of course, we aren't), please file a report and Checkuser request here, otherwise it should be taken as a personal attack. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
User:DanielTom How does it appear censorship or vandalsim especially when I asked discussion here. "Censorship" or you are edit-warring because your bias overrides everything else? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
My "bias" is restoring sourced material, which I do in all sorts of articles. You always cry wolf "edit-warring" but even admins are beginning to see through it (e.g. here: [11], [12]). ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No your bias is non-notable and improperly quoted material. You must mention variations. As for credit-warring, but let's say your friend has himself been warned. Do you need examples? I can happily give them. Maybe you forgot to add the same admin you talk about, had warned both me and Jedi3: [13]. And he himself has been blocked as well. Why don't you just admit the truth of what you did and stop taking sides over for ideology or being same as him? Your view must not outweigh rules of Wikiquote. Do not disrupt, do not lie. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am concerned about the disruptive editing done by user:Jedi3 as well. He uses a fictitious play, w:Tamburlaine, and presents it as a quote from Timur himself [14].

Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, false claims and censorship[edit]

The user User:Jedi3 is keeps falsely blaming me of censorship and keeps edit-warring. He is only engaged in POV-pushing and adding statements just so they agree with his view. He doesn't care if his claims are made up like he did at Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic.

Or making up a false reason to remove a quote at Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent. Or he keeps making up his quotes eloquent, poignant, witty etc despite the "quotes" not even falling at all within the definition. He does this just to have his edits there at all costs. I've told him several times about this including here.

He falsely keeps saying I'm censoring him when all I've done is remove those quotes which aren't notable in any manner. Not those which are notable and i've preserved many of the quotes he has added. also removed the subsection of my complaint here. He himself censors me here and here in the past.

I've warned him several times including here, here and here. He doesn't listen and has removed my comments several times from his talk page.

Not to mention this person has also insulted me by terming me annoying after another user called me so, besides also calling me a vandal, when he himself can be indicted for edit-warring and vandalism. please block this user. I've been trying to cooperate with him, but it is clear he only wants his ideology imposed here. Their is no bar on any person of any ideology, even though Wikiquote is about neutrality but he doesn't care about anything and is being unprofessional.  and it is clear he doesn't care what he does to get his edits here at all costs.

Right after his block expired, Jedi3 is back at edit-warring before even waiting for a discussion and made 3 reverts at 3 articles. See his recent reverts, here, a sly attempt to befool others in edit summary at Aurangzeb of "article under construction", at Malabar rebellion. He proceeded to make additional subtractions and additions at Aurangzeb, even though a revert is a revert whether partial or complete. He is trying to fool others. And just after his block expired, he has started edit-warring again and made three reverts. I would first like to check all his quotes and then discuss them one by one.

He is also attempting meat puppetry by sending messages to various users even though he's been categorically told by User:UDScott his quotes are not memorable. At an unrelated article, Talk:India, he is making false comments of censorship at me again. He edit warred there also. Even though this article isn't related at all to any of the issues between us, he is deliberately vandalsing it. I haven't stopped discussion with him and I am discussing at Talk:Aurangzeb and other articles. But he is taking to completely unrelated articles where I didn't even made an edit. He may invite anyone and discuss any problem he has, but the talk pages of the articles are meant for that. He is clearly not interested in cooperation and only edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Inviting users to comment, if done in a neutral way, is not "attempting meat puppetry". Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. To stop the wikihounding, there should be an interaction ban between MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3. If MonsterHunter32 has reasonable objections to the quotes themselves, he may discuss them on the article's talk page, but not remove them unilaterally. He may proceed to remove the disputed quotes from the articles only if in those discussions he manages to get some other editor to agree with him. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
The first of your points is a content dispute, the place to discuss these is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes). These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles.
When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you. --Jedi3 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the first of my points is you making repeated false claims. Oh and I have not said I will never discuss. It is you who is refusing cooperation by making false claims again and again. It is you who has added or removed quotes under false reasons. Removal of quotes is censorship. Didn't you first realise those quotes will be removed? Anyone can. Add that to your already made false claims regarding quotes, it is clear you are only interested in disruptive edits with malafide intent.
While you claim I censored you, I have already said i am not removing anything because of your views but simply because your quotes are not memorable and in some cases added under false claims. I added the quotes at Talk:Aurangzeb and you picked one from Will Durant. We are discussing it. If you refuse to continue discussion, then that is your fault. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Also please note that User:Jedi3 has tried to wriggle out of any attempts at discussion by demanding an interaction ban. I can understand a block. But it is clear this person is making all attempts to stifle discussion so he gets what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

While Jedi3 keeps claiming censorship, he knows I've checked many of his recent edits on other articles where we don't have any issues. I've mostly removed quotes from his older articles. But even there I've let some of his quotes remain there. That's because on any article whenever I've found his quotes are really memorable and notable, I have not removed them. Yet in bad faith he claims censorship, when he knows that the only problem is his addition of whatever non-notable quote that too just to further his view. It is clear he only cares for what he wants even if he is being disruptive and edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

And will someone please tell User:Jedi3 to resume discussion instead of abruptly stopping it at Talk:Aurangzeb where I removed his non-notable quotes. He's back to again repeating the same old made-up claims at Talk:India which never worked at befooling anyone at Talk:Somnath temple and Talk:Aurangzeb. What's more this India article isn't even related to any of our issues. What is the point in dragging and repeating the same old claims at an article where we had no issue instead of the article where the issue is? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DanielTom claimed about me some time back that I am "censoring quotes critical of Islam". How when the topic is in most cases not Islam? The only thing most of the articles relate to Islam is that the Muslim rulers were Muslims or some of their actions may be because of Islamic fundamentalism. Most quotes I removed are not about Islam except maybe a few non-notable ones added by Jedi3 which he added into articles of Muslim rulers or a particular religious conflict/riot like Noakhali riots.

He claims it despite me adding quotes about negative acts done by Muslims. At Aurangzeb I myself added a quote talking about temple destruction by Aurangzeb. Even at Noakhali riots I added a quote holding a Muslim responsible. I added them only because they were notable. Also I made few changes to ancient India as well. I however only remove content that is clearly not notable or memorable. The user has similarly made quotes against Christian colonial rulers in India only to further his agenda. Even if his quotes are not memorable he has added them. Also I'm only taking action against Jedi3's disruptive vandal edits and non-notable quotes. Stopping disruptive edits is in no way Wikihounding. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Also DanielTom claimed that a neutral request for comment is not"meat-puppetry". Except Jedi3's request was never neutral. He kept on blaming me of the same thing he has balemed here to cast me as the "bad guy', instead of making a simple neutral request. As the same comment is on other pages I'll show some few of his non-neutral "requests" to attempt to influence others against me aka "meatpupettry": [15], [16]. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Another important thing I think should be mentioned here is while Jedi3 accuses me of "blanking", his actions are disrupting my ability to contribute to Wikiquote articles. It is Jedi3's disruptive edit-warring and his constant arguing that too with false claims that has caused a huge load of time wasted. Because of this I haven't been able to find time to freely edit many articles including where he has added non-memorable sources. I am not blanking, actually I wish to make all articles better. But the thing is Jedi3 is indirectly preventing it.
I have even discussed with him. But since 25 March, Jedi3 hasn't replied on Talk:Aurangzeb, [Talk:india which by the way had nothing to do with our edits as we never had any argument over the quotes in the article India. Since 5 March, no reply at Talk:Somnath temple.
  • In past I tried to improve upon Aurangzeb where Jedi3's quotes were mostly non-notable. After removing non-notable ones, I started adding actually memorable/notable quotes. But while I was adding them, Jedi3 kept intruding to restore his non-notable quotes, causing a huge wastage of time on his repeated edit-warring which also resulted in me not being able to devote time to addition of quotes.
Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [17], [18], [19] and [20]. Also at the same time, Jedi3 kept edit-warring, sapping most of my time in dealing with his constant edit-warring. I told him not to edit-war while calling for cooperation. He didn't listen. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].
The above are only some of the reverts which caused a time-wastage and left me with no energy to make additions to the article.. While he keeps claiming I do not cooperate, I have discussed a lot with him. I already told him not to discuss everything at once. What will be beter is one quote discussed at a time as Jedi3 doesn't stop edit-warring or is stuck even over one quote like he did at Somnath temple.
  • Also same thing has happened at Noakhali riots. He kept edit-warring over one non-notable quote that i removed and in the process also kept removing the notable quotes I added. these are my additions: [29], [30] and [31]. I went away for some time as I can't keep editing forever. Then Jedi3 tried to edit-war here as well, impacting my quotes in the process as well.: [32] and [33]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.
Jedi3 is very disruptive. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition Jedi3 has at many times refused to admit outright that some of his quotes were made-up or unrelated to the topic. Even after that is pointed out to him, he refuses to admit or tries to justify it and keeps on changing to stand.
  • At Sikandar Butshikan, he added modified wording of a quote from the historian Ferishta which isn't there in the original source concerning the Martand temple. I pointed this out while removing it and also provided the original source ie., Ferishta's work, as the proof (https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.501767/2015.501767.history-of#page/n505/mode/1up), that the quote is not as he claimed it to be, At Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indicated it clearly that it was copied from Wikipedia with the modified quote being due to Wikipedia claiming it such. This despite Wikipedia should not be used as a source. He also claimed that he still believes that Ferishta mentions it, despite him offering no prrof that he make such a quote and me offring proof that he didn't make such a quote. Do note that my contention is not about whether Sikandar Butshikan destroyed Martand temple, but simply whether Ferishta mentioned Martand in a quote about temple destruction.
When I told about this at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, Jedi3 shifted his stand to that Elliot and Dowson write that "Firishta' attributes to Sikandar the demolition of all the Kashmirian temples. On Talk:Sikandar Butshikhan, he however made no such claim, Jedi3 said, "As I said, Wikipedia made the connection between that quote and Martand. If that connection is now disputed, I'm fine with not using the image for the quote." What's more, all I asked was whether Ferishta ever mentions Martand in a quote. This is not Wikipeia and i'm not disputing Sikandar's temple-destruction. The only dispute is whether the quote from Ferishta has made-up claims added to it. Jedi3 still doesn't admit wrong-doing. Now he has again shifted his stand, claiming here at AN that it is a content dispute. Actually it's about the quote being-made up. To avoid admitting his wrong-doing he keeps making false claims.
  • At Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, he removed a quote: "(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land." For this at Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent he claims "This quote is not about the conquest or invasions, it better belongs to an article on Islam in India, moved to article Islam in India.". Then he dropped the latter part and shifted his stand: "The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes)." Despite the quote never mentioning Islam in India and clearly mentioning he Muslim period or Muslim rule/conquests of india more appropriately. Apparently while he claims he doesn't think it is about conquests it is okay for him to shift articles to an article about Islam in India, even though the quote never talks about Islam in India.
This is no content dispute as he claims. He is only making false claims and then shifting goalposts to when confronted about his behavior. Ir is clear Jedi3 is a very disruptive behavior. I don't know why for any reason who keep son edit-warring, disrupting and constantly making deliberate false claims is allowed to continue. Action should be taken against him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


  • I have already replied to most of this elsewhere. Why are you avoiding to discuss the topic which is your censorship, by bringing in irrelevant content disputes that I mostly replied already to elsewhere? 95% of your text is completely unrelated to the censorship issue, and it concerns only 1% of the quotes. But despite that I replied already you are repeating the same stuff over and over again. About Muhammed bin Qasim, the place to discuss this is the article talkpage (but since you refuse to move the quotes to the talkpage for discussion...) I have never before even heard from you about the issue at Muhammad bin Qasim. I don't know if what you claim is true but I will look into it as soon as you move the quote to the talkpage of Muhammad bin Qasim with your reasoning. But since you refuse to do this.... Now you are telling me that you explained it in the edit summary. You used 3 words in your edit summary, and I and other users expect to see your full reasoning on the talkpage as told many times by many users. I will not look for edit summaries, I will look for talkpage discussions. And besides, your 2 or 3 word edit summaries are extremely inadequate for giving your full reasoning, especially since you deleted in some articles over 15 quotes at once! Elsewhere you are complaining about edits from you that I didn't challenge for various reasons, but with these points you are simply trying to avoid discussing the topic here, which is your unexplained censorship of sourced quotes. These are all content disputes, which should be discussed on the talkpage after you moved the quote there with your reasoning (which you never do). I have also not reverted all of your removals, in some cases I have kept your changes, or I have at least made the quotes shorter (it is you who always refuse to make the slightest concession). But this is just 5 percent of the quotes. The rest is just undiscussed blanking of articles. When you claim I am censoring you I was just restoring the previous version of the article. In most cases, I took the trouble to add your other changes back to the article, but when you were censoring so many articles at once, I couldn't be expected to do this every time. The rest of your comment is just poor excuses and deliberate misrepresentations. I was not edit warring and I was discussing all of my edits on the discussion page, unlike you.

This discussion would not be necessary if you had followed what was asked to you by multiple users many times:

  • All deleted quotes must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove.

Now you are again doing deliberate misrepresenations when you claim you have discussed the quotes. You have almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What I ask as a minimal first step from you is that you move all your deleted quotes to the article talkpages with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning.

This is a minimal first step that is required to enable the further discussion of the removed quotes, and that you have refused to do despite being asked so many times by multiple users. Until you do that, what you say are just poor excuses. I did not abrutptely stop any discussion. You have failed to provide your reasoning for each deleted quote on the talkpage despite being told many times by many users. And in most cases you did not even move the censored quotes to the talkpage.

  • All quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 must at the very least be moved by him to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning (for each removed quote), as required by Template:Remove. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept.
  • As long as you refuse to even move the censored quotes to the article talkpage with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning, which was asked by many people many times, you are just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved. --Jedi3 (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User;Jedi3 Instead of avoiding taking responsibility, you should accept when your lie is caught. I have already pointed out your false claims to you. The appropriate place to apologize is anywhere. Also please don't keep shifting your stand. that only shows you are not bothered about anything but what you want at all costs even if you lie, a serious breach.

  • At Sikandar Butshikan, he added modified wording of a quote from the historian Ferishta which isn't there in the original source concerning the Martand temple. I pointed this out while removing it and also provided the original source ie., Ferishta's work, as the proof (https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.501767/2015.501767.history-of#page/n505/mode/1up), that the quote is not as he claimed it to be, At Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indicated it clearly that it was copied from Wikipedia with the modified quote being due to Wikipedia claiming it such. This despite Wikipedia should not be used as a source. He also claimed that he still believes that Ferishta mentions it, despite him offering no prrof that he make such a quote and me offring proof that he didn't make such a quote. Do note that my contention is not about whether Sikandar Butshikan destroyed Martand temple, but simply whether Ferishta mentioned Martand in a quote about temple destruction.
When I told about this at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress, Jedi3 shifted his stand to that Elliot and Dowson write that "Firishta' attributes to Sikandar the demolition of all the Kashmirian temples. On Talk:Sikandar Butshikhan, he however made no such claim, Jedi3 said, "As I said, Wikipedia made the connection between that quote and Martand. If that connection is now disputed, I'm fine with not using the image for the quote." What's more, all I asked was whether Ferishta ever mentions Martand in a quote. This is not Wikipeia and i'm not disputing Sikandar's temple-destruction. The only dispute is whether the quote from Ferishta has made-up claims added to it. Jedi3 still doesn't admit wrong-doing. Now he has again shifted his stand, claiming here at AN that it is a content dispute. Actually it's about the quote being-made up. To avoid admitting his wrong-doing he keeps making false claims.
  • At Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, he removed a quote: "(The Muslims had) enriched our culture, strengthened our administration, and brought near distant parts of the country... It (the Muslim Period) touched deeply the social life and the literature of the land." For this at Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent he claims "This quote is not about the conquest or invasions, it better belongs to an article on Islam in India, moved to article Islam in India.". Then he dropped the latter part and shifted his stand: "The quote from the conquest article is ambiguous, to say the least, it is not strictly about the conquest (and in your edit you were adding 2 different quotes)." Despite the quote never mentioning Islam in India and clearly mentioning he Muslim period or Muslim rule/conquests of india more appropriately. Apparently while he claims he doesn't think it is about conquests it is okay for him to shift articles to an article about Islam in India, even though the quote never talks about Islam in India.
This is no content dispute as he claims. He is only making false claims and then shifting goalposts to when confronted about his behavior. Ir is clear Jedi3 is a very disruptive behavior. I don't know why for any reason who keep son edit-warring, disrupting and constantly making deliberate false claims is allowed to continue. Action should be taken against him.

Apologize or face action for lying. Also Template:Remove is not a policy. Still I don't oppose discussion. But I suggest you stop running away from discussions if you want to discuss. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Current status[edit]

Here you see an overview with the current status (which does not even include all of the deleted quotes):

Article Discussion page Number of censored quotes MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk? MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk? Current status
* Talk:Aurangzeb About 37 quotes. The quotes added on 23 March were NOT moved to talk. The previously added quotes were added to talk. Reasoning for ONE quote (Will Durant quote) given, but no consensus achieved. Reasoning for the rest (about 36 quotes!) NOT given on talk. Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the rest of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.

Comments from other editors about the Will Durant quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Somnath temple 2 quotes. Started deleting quote on 7 January, moved ONE quote to talk on 21 January. Second quote not moved to talk by MH32. Reasoning given for ONE quote, but no consensus achieved. Second DELETED quote needs reasoning. Comments from other editors needed. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the second DELETED quote on the talkpage.

Comments from other editors about the Wilkie Collins quote needed. Please see discussion at Talk:India#Summary_table.
* Talk:Swami Vivekananda 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the DELETED quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Historical negationism 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.
* Talk:Slavery in India 3 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim About 15 quotes. No. He refused to move the censored quotes to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for each of the DELETED quotes on the talkpage.
* Talk:Malabar rebellion 1 quote. No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

True account of Jedi3's edit-wars and disruption[edit]

Article Number of non-notable quotes removed Jedi3 stopped edit-warring? Last edit-warring revert? Jedi3's disruption allowed MonsterHunter32 to move quotes to talk? Template:Remove requires moving? Satisfactory reason given? Jedi3 completed discussion on one quote anywhere?
Aurangzeb Almost 30 quotes, not 40. As already explained to Jedi3 some of his new quotes keep getting removed due to his own edit-warring which I revert, see [34]. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed on talk page since 23 March. Moved. The new 10 quotes he claims I "censored", were only removed due to his edit-warring. I've already said he could restore them if they are notable. Another quote he claims I removed is still there. NOT ALWAYS. YES. NO
Somnath temple 2 quotes. No. Still edit-warring: [35]. Last date of talk before today. 5 March One moved. The other not, as I was too busy arguing on Talk:Aurangzeb with Jedi3. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Other given too in edit-summary. NO
Talk:Swami Vivekananda 1 quote. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Historical negationism 1 quote. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary. NO
Talk:Slavery in India 3 quotes. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [36], [37], [38] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim About 15 quotes. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit summary: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion 1 quote. No. Still edit-warring as of 29 March. Too busy reverting Jedi3's edit-warring reverts who hasn't stopped. NOT ALWAYS. YES. Reason given in edit-summary: [52] NO

This person is clearly not interested in "cooperation" or any real "discussion". he has edit-warred dozens of times even recently despite being warned by administrators. Please have him blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)