Jump to content

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/032

Add links
From Wikiquote

Semi-protection for Donald Trump

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

I have just provided that page protection to auto-confirmed users for a span of 3 years. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 19:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please block User:Risto hot sir

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Authors" is the category worth nothing.--Risto hot sir (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's just as usable as "people".--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)'[reply]
Who's the idiot? The texts tell that.--Risto hot sir (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some essential places can be told if the birth place ain't enough.--Risto hot sir (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Disagree. Let's see what other editors write.--Risto hot sir (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But it's posh?--Risto hot sir (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote. J.A.R.N.Y🗣‬ 21:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 is using socks to manipulate discussions and votes for deletion

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

MH32

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Jedi3's socks and disruptions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Current status

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

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)[reply]

DanielTom's disruptive edits.

User:DanielTom has accused me of several false and bad faith accusations in the past. He has also edit-warred. He has been warned for disruptive behavior in past as well.

Just after his first revert of my removing a non-notable quote, I invited him to discussion. Notably, I had started the discussion even before DanieTom first reverted me.

He still reverted me three times more: [53], [54] and [55]. I still kept inviting him for discussion in my edits.

I had already offered him a compromise meanwhile. Despite my good-faith gesture for hours even befiore he came, he still accuses that he though of it as "censorship".

At this noticeboard he baselessly accused me of censoring quotes about Islam. As I already said: 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.

He still made his unsubstantiated false arguments against me of "censoring". I ask hm to apologize. He doesn't. i repeatedly ask him, and he keeps removing my message. And then he calls me a troll. Ajedi3 hasd amde a depply insulting atatck earlier also by calling me annoying.

I ask he be warned and made to apologize. it is clear he is supporting Jedi3 merely because of similar pattern of thinking and ideology. It is clear to DanielTom, it doesn't matter if he is being disruptive. not just disruption, but he has made false claims. He should be blocked of a week if he doesn't apologize. This is so he realizes his mistake. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to MonsterHunter32, if you restore sourced material that he chooses to remove, you are being disruptive. (Notice, by the way, that in the case he cites here I did discuss at the talk page, and in the end he himself added the quote he had removed back to the article!) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UDsoctt didn'tt take action even after I stated that Jedi3 has again started edit-arring. I am sick of this now. You two keep on making bad-faith edits against me. I only removed your quotews because they were non-notable nothing else. I valued rules above all else. Sources aren't the mere criteria. But no one one listens to me. If admins don't take action against Jedi3, I quit. DanielTom should be warned meanwhile. I am flabbergasted by his accusations against me. But it is clear no one won;t so anything. Either action be taken against at least Jedi3 tomorrow, or I quit forever. Then you and Jedi3 can do what you want. I am sick of wasting time here. I never wanted to do this anyway.. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Action should have been taken against DanielTom as well. It is clear his past behavior hasn't improved. But no one seems to be bothered. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as even admin Kalki has recently pointed out). One quote added by Nvvchar years ago was removed, restored by me after discussion on my talk page, and now months later MonsterHunter32 removes it and calls me an "ideological edit-warring vandal" for undoing his removal, which was done without prior discussion and against consensus. It's very clear that he needs to be blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom, the previous complaint of you disparaging your hated subjects, your false claims about me censoring quotes "critical of Islam even though most of my edits re not about that, you repeated edit-warring. What does that show? So don't blame me, blame yourself. Someone shoudl block you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This type of aggressive and abusive behavior has no place on Wikiquote. I think some actions should be taken against user:DanielTom, such as a topic ban, as he is clearly not (from the evidence) willing to be civil and neutral. Bababuey (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, User:Bababuey has a total of 29 edits on Wikiquote (all focused on Islam-related quotes like MonsterHunter32). ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends disruptive IPs

Multiple IPs continue to make edits by adding non-existent quotes (like this edit, for instance) and unneeded narrator quotes that are far from relevant. I request that all Thomas & Friends articles be protected for a long period of time, because anything less than half a year will not stop them. WikiLubber (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, the vandalism goes on, and the IP users constantly refuse to respond to or heed my warnings. WikiLubber (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP vandal 75.187.99.153

Constantly adds notability-lacking single quotes (most of which were incomplete, particularly when it comes to character subsections) and writes quotes based solely on how they are written in DVD/Blu-ray subtitles (which are far from trustworthy and are never without error). I request that this IP be blocked for a long period of time and that all articles it vandalized be protected indefinitely. WikiLubber (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, the vandalism goes on, and the IP users constantly refuse to respond to or heed my warnings. WikiLubber (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 mass-censoring pages again

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is mass-censoring pages again, without even discussion on the talkpage. Can someone please stop him? --Jedi3 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only removing his non-notable and non-related quotes. Besides Jedi3 can discuss anytime when I'm free. Do remeber that this user while talking about discussion is still edit-warring at Somnath temple until a few days ago, where he still hasn't finished the argument at Talk:Somnath temple. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides give me a break. I didn't even remove all the non-notable quotes. If I did many of the articles would be empty. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I decided to stay away on admin advice, Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

Not withstanding most of my edits aren't about Islam, they are mostly about Muslim rulers, Jedi3's disruptive edits have also extended to European Christian rulers and ancient India.

He actually made 6 reverts, another one without any reason : [61]. He has lied multiple times, but I don't want to edit-war.

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [62], [63], [64]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [65], [66]

Some false claims of "massive blanking" despite only one quote being removed: [67], [68], [69].

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [70]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [71], [72]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

Action needs to be taken against this disruptive person otherwise it's a mockery of moderation and the Wiki policies. I didn't edit-war with Jedi3 and reported him to Kalki and UDScott too. But no action has been taken. That's why i was forced to remove his non-notable quotes. Please take action against him. I haven't stopped him from discussion. It is he who often abruptly stops discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MonsterHunter32: It appears to me that you are reverting too quickly to have actually checked your work. Here, for example, you removed a completely appropriate hatnote on Francis Bacon pointing to Francis Bacon (artist). Please restore this hatnote. This sort of thing leads me to wonder if you have actually taken the time to check the availability or notability of the quotes that you have deleted as non-notable. BD2412 T 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, if you look through MH32's contributions, you will find that he is only here to censor, delete and blank quotes he does not like, especially anything that I added.
He has been warned more than enough times already of this plain vandalism masked with extremely poor excuses. Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?
He should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called massive and almost indiscriminate removals and blanking with poor justifications and which as disruptive vandalism is surely a blockable offence.--Jedi3 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 Sorry. Mistakes are made especially when editing quickly. But unlike Jedi3, I admit them. I don't mean to remove anyone else's edit except Jedi3. However, problem is that Jedi3 keeps on making false claims about his quotes like how they are poignant, witty etc even when they have nothing to do with their basic dictionary meaning. Jedu3 even stops discussing abruptly some times. That's why I decided to revert so many of his edits because discussion goes nowhere because of him. I'll correct other edits that may have been accidentally removed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 should be blocked

MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked for his massive vandalism and mass blanking of quotes without even discussion on the talkpage, which other editors have also called a massive and almost indiscriminate removals and which as disruptive vandalism are surely a blockable offence.

He has been warned enough already.

He has been told enough times already that he should at the very least observe this rule:

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.

Other editors have noticed the same, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishonen#Need_your_help_again and https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/User_talk:UDScott#MonsterHunter32 and other places.

Also see Daniels' latest comment here https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=2391342

Do the admins think that the editors’ time is so worthless that users like MH32 will continue creating problems one by one, and each time others will take the pain to go to various noticeboards to seek a justice only to find that MH32 is back again with his problematic behavior? How many times do we have to come back here before we decide that this is a net negative to the project? How much time does he have to waste before enough is enough?

I will also gladly respond to any editor about any questions regarding the invalid and poor excuses that MH32 is giving for his massive censorship, most of which are deliberate misrepresentations or worse, including his most recent one at Babar (where he claimed that he couldn't find it in the source, even though the page of the source he linked does discuss the very issue MH32 is complaining about in the footnote). And what is needed, after the pages are protected and MH32 is blocked, is some input and comments from other editors about the deleted quotes, which I have already asked for many times, since the discussion with someone like MH32 who refuses to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion on any issue is unproductive and third party opinons are needed. --Jedi3 (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi3 Also it is funny you are claimimg I made a "deliberately misrepresentation" at Babur about thr Battle of Chanderi. Maybe you forget to mention that you yourself didn't check the quote from the original source. I had shifted a quote from an obscure translation of Baburnama by S.A.A. Rizvi ehich was claimed in another book by another author S.R. Goel, to disputed after not being able to find it. The events of Chanderi are called general slaughter at one page and mass-suicide of all the combatants at another where there is no slaughter, I initially only could find the latter.
You had made no claim in any of your edit on the article you found it. That caused confusion. Only after I shifted it to disputed, did you yourself state at Talk:Babur that you found it. The source used is the much more notable translation by Annette Beveridge. After being able to verify it, i added it back and replaced Rizvi's translation with that of Beveridge.
Had you ever bothered to check the original sources, this confusion wouldn't have happened. Another reason why you should be blocked. Unlike you, I try to verify whether something is said in teh originak source or not. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's go through it.

  1. After you moved the quote to misattributed here [73], I moved it to disputed [74], as I explained on the talkpage here
  2. Your edit summary was "The actual description of Baburnama is completely different then what Goel claims. All Rajputs nearly almost exterminated themselves, there is no mention of any slaughter or darul islam. Can't even find it in the Thackston version)"
  3. Here I could easily have called you a liar, as you have called me and other editors multiple times, but unlike you, I was assuming good faith. You linked to this page here, and this page clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
  4. So the points you made (that you cannot find the quote in your translation, and that you cannot find any mention of a massacre and of Dar-Ul-Islam) can be easily proven false by just reading the very page that you linked to.
  5. But still unlike you I was assuming good faith and did not call you a liar, like you usually do.
  6. Also the translation by Rizvi is not obscure, it was published by the reputed Aligarh Muslim University. You can google Aligarh Muslim University and find out for yourself that it is very reputable, I don't need to repeat what you can google in one minute. Also, calling a book obsucre because it is written in an Indian language, or because it is not online, or because several decades later in 2018 there are sources that are more widely used, or because it is from Aligarh University, is just bias.
  7. Your claim that I did not read the original source (besides violating the Assume good faith rule) is a straw man. There are thousands of quotes on WQ that were added from secondary sources like here Dance#Hoyt's_New_Cyclopedia_of_Practical_Quotations or here Dance#Wisdom_for_the_Soul:_Five_Millennia_of_Prescriptions_for_Spiritual_Healing or here and I do not for one second believe that they were checked against the original source. But I did include the secondary source as a source for the quote, so I don't see where the problem is when the secondary source was even noted below the quote. Also of course, the original quote was written in the Chagatai language, an extinct language, so checking the original is not even very feasible in this case. Besides, most translations into English were translated from Chagatai language to Persian language, before being translated into a modern language. I assume this is also the case for the translation you used. Were you checking your addition against the origianl Chagatai language version, or at least against the Persian version? In any case, while in this case I checked only the version from the secondary source and did not check not the original version in the Chagatai language, the most I could have done, without knowledge of Chagatai language, is checking muliple English translations. This is not a requirement at wikiquote, but when feasible and appropriate I will do it. I read the secondary source from which I used the quote, I clearly marked all the sources below the quote, including the secondary source. That is all that is needed. I did not read the Rizvi book, but this is also not required (and you would have to assume that I can read Hindi, you also didn't read the source in the original Chagatai language). I take your suggestions how to improve by comparing with multiple translations, although this is also not a requirement and which I did not do it in this case, but I am open to all suggestions how to improve, and as appropriate and feasible, I will to the best to improve using also your suggestions. But all this should not be used as a poor excuse for you for your massive censorship in other unrelated articles.
  8. At the end of the day it is just one more example you were unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles.--Jedi3 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jedi3 Sure let's discuss. Completely false comparison of "unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content". I simply shifted the quote to another sectio. because of finding an apparent contradictory narration of events of a battle. I didn't even remove it. Also here is your own past behavior of false made-up and unrelated quotes: [75], [76], [77].
Isn't it true your own source says the original translation is in Hindi? Can you access Rizvi's translation of Baburnama? Can you say a lot of people know about Aligarh Muslim University or Rizvi? Can you quote for me the full statement said at the page without the "..."? What does obscure mean - not discoverable or uncertain.
It is not me claiming you didn't read the source. You yourself said "you found it". The source used is the much more notable translation by Annette Beveridge. After being able to verify it, I added it back.
Isn't it true that the Beveridge translation is different? So how will you call me a liar? Isn't it true that you are only adding it based om what you read from Hindutva-leaning book by SR Goel?You never had any good faith. All you care about is pushing your POV at all costs. Unjust? You've added many false quotes in the past. The examples are right above. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said that you were unjustly using it as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content in other unrelated articles. Your reply is again misleading, when you delibarately quote only half of the sentence. You were using this and other equally misleading examples as poor excuses or arguments [78].
The Aligarh Muslim University is a reputed institution, you can google it. There is no requirement that such a translation from Aligarh Muslim University is not valid as a source, it only betrays your bias against Indian languages. In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online.
The translation and the page you linked to did clearly says in footnote 1 that the Chanderi attack was also mentioned in another place in the same book, and that there is a difference between the two mentions.
When you then link to the very page that, if you fully read it, mentions the very points you make, and disproves your very points, I could have called you a liar this is what you would have done if I had done anything like it --Jedi3 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said false comparison of "unjustly using as a poor excuse for justification to mass delete content". Try reading before commenting.
As for misleading, I call someone not even verifying a quote as and making a post-facto discovery is misleading. As for the translation clearly saying about the footnote, when I tried to read it, it is really tiny.
I didn't find the other quote earlier, nor did you until later finding it. After being able to verify it, I added it back.
You are still not answering any of my questions. Isn't it true your own source says the original translation is in Hindi? Can you access Rizvi's translation of Baburnama? Can you say a lot of people know about Aligarh Muslim University or Rizvi and his translation (which even I didn't know before)? What does obscure mean - not discoverable or uncertain. Can you quote for me the full original statement said at the page without the "..."? Can you prove that you verified your claims before adding? Go ahead. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And Jedi3 has a new criteria for a work being not obscure. He claims its not obscure because of its publisher, the "Aligarh Muslim University". My comment of obscurity was not even about the publisher, but the work itself. Not withstanding that everyone won't know about the publisher. A work isn't automotically non-obscure because of the publisher. Nor Jedi3 has accessed it to verify his quotes, that is clear from his comments.
The translation doesn't seem accessible. Regardless, User:Jedi3 also doesn't mention that the translated quote I added actually isn't exactly the same as the one he originally added. Jedi3 clearly never bothered to verify what he wrote and is claiming a quote that is not entirely the same translation. His own claims are becoming an excuse now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I did not oppose you in changing it to another translation that, in 2018, is more widely available online. I agreed to these changes about this particular quote, so there shouldn't even be a dispute anymore. It is normal that quotes can be changed by editing, and I agreed to these particular changes on this quote.--Jedi3 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And there you have it, the actual misleading liar - Jedi3. Blames me of misleading reasons, doesn't bother to read that the translated quote I added back is actually a bit different and not exactly the same as the one he added. Doesn’t himself check the original sources. And when his mistakes are pointed out, he never accepts it. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please block disruptive Jedi3

User:Jedi3 keeps on falsely claiming I am "censoring him" despite me leaving intact many of his notable quotes no matter what they are. I've already explained to him that I won't remove any notable quotes. He must stop with his false bad-faith accusations

Jedi3 has been constantly edit-warring despite being warned by admins and told plainly some of his quotes aren't memorable and seem to be only meant for POV-pushing. While criticising me, Kalki criticised Jedi3 as well tating the biases are leading to "lapses of both logic and fairness".

Also after he failed to prove his quotes as notable, he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them. It is ironic he accuses others of stonewalling when he resorts to unethical behaviour to keep his quotes there at all costs.

At another article in the past, he falsely called the edit of a user as vandalism despite him giving a clear reason for why he deleted it. He didn't bother to discuss or even counter the editor while reverting.

Also persistent history of Jedi3's edit-warring from the history of these articles: [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86].

Jedi3 again reverted me with false claims. Despise the argument over even one of his quotes never being resolved, he used the false reason "see talk" to add back his non-notable content. He could only add it back, because I decided to let it go. However, he used false claims like he had some victory in the argument over the quotes.

Here are his reverts, [87], [88], [89], [90], [91].

In some of these cases there were only one quote or the quotes were not as Jedi3 had added them. Despite pointing out so, he doesn't accept it.

He has edit-warred even after being warned and blocked in the past. Right after UDScott warned him, he still kept edit-warring at multiple articles: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97].

Jedi3 was blocked by UDScott for a week. But he resumed edit-warring: [98], [99], [100].

This is not his first time making false claims, his made-up and unrelated quotes: [101], [102], [103]. Despite me pointing out with original sources and teh quotes themselves about his false claims in these edits, he still refuses to accept it, see his denials despite being exposed: [104], [105]

His vandalism has caused a lot of disruotion especially as it prevents me from adding quotes and making useful contribution. :Here are the quotes I added at Aurangzeb: [106], [107], [108] and [109]. 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 [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]. 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: [118], [119] and [120]. 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.: [121] and [122]. This despite his removed quote only being one in number.

Also Jedi3 keeps claiming Template:Remove: "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."

It is also clear, that Jedi3 hasn't bothered to verify his quotes from the original sources, and is just adding based on whjetevr he reads especially from hindutva-leaning authors. just recently he showed thew truth of his edit process, when at Babur, I couldn't find the quote Jedi3 added I simply shifted it to disputed before it could be verified. Only after I said so, Jedi3 bothered to verify it, however it isn't exactly the book of the Hindutva-leaning SR Goel claimed: [123]. He has shown the same behavior of not verifying his claims: In the last part of my comment here, I pointed out with the original sources he used for a quote that it is not about Muhammad bin Qasim. He however has refused to accept his wrongdoings about it: [124], [125]. Similarly, at Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, he indirectly admitted to copying quotes from Wikipedia without checking if they're true when I pointed out his quote doesn't exist in the orignal source.

It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result. He even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.

Please block this disruptive vandal immediately. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MonsterHunter32s massive, unxplained and indiscriminate censorship of sourced quotes

Quotes censored by MonsterHunter32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) across dozens of pages need to be moved to the talkpage with full reasoning for the censorship. Virtually his only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes without any explanation on the talkpage (as asked MANY times).

Quotes censored recently were not moved to talk since he repeatedly refuses to do it despite being asked MANY times by many users.
But MonsterHunter32 still needs to highlight the quote on talkpage and give full reasoning (for each removed quote) on the talkpage.
  • 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.

He has almost never yourself moved quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning as was asked dozens of time by mulitple users.

What is asked 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. 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 he refuses 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, he is just giving poor excuses to avoid open discussion where other editors are also involved.

Here you see an overview with the current status (which does not even include all of the deleted quotes).--Jedi3 (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Discussion page Number of censored quotes MonsterHunter32 moved censored quotes to talk? MonsterHunter32 gave full reasoning for deletions on talk? Current status (see also Talk:India#Summary_table)
* Talk:Aurangzeb Almost 40 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. 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. 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.
*Talk:Francis Bacon
 Many quotes (too many to count) No. He refused to move it to talk despite being asked many times. No reasoning given on talk. MonsterHunter32 needs to move censored quote to talk and give full reasoning for the censored quote on the talkpage.

Comments on MonsterHunter32

This is what other editors have said about MonsterHunter32:
  • isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes critical of Islam (as you yourself have pointed out). It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.
  • You have been told by an admin that you need to generate WP:CONSENSUS before your content can be accepted, and in order to generate consensus, you need to start answering questions that are being posed. Claiming that it is all clear, "read it for yourself" etc. constitute stonewalling. They get you no closer to any form of consensus.
  • "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."
  • I find it morally repugnant when people .... simply seek to remove quotes if they are not complimentary to the views they favor, to the extent they can — MOST of your edits seem to be CENSORSHIP ....
  • " I would simply suggest that rather than trying to delete the page one should instead try to find properly sourced and relevant quotes that might represent an alternative POV. "
  • "I see no creditable reason for eliminating a page .... because the creator of the page is disliked...."
  • "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~ "
  • "I’m not sure how any of this answers what I wrote." (in response to MonsterHunter32)
  • "No more of this time-wasting dispute here. I don't want my talk page to be used to call people vandals, liars, etc..... "
  • "Stop with the misleading edit summaries (and now section headings too). "
  • "and IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED."
  • "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes ... and wikihounding him. These are very reasonable concerns. .... 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."
  • And if you don't stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you will end up getting blocked. Please be warned.
  • If you persist in .... that has been questioned without getting consensus first, you will be either topic banned from Indian subjects, or blocked for disruptive editing.
  • "it certainly IS censorship to ATTEMPT to allow ONLY one side to a discussion "
  • "if you keep this up you will be blocked"
I previously agreed with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard:
  • "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" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.) --Jedi3 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi3's masive disprutive editing

Here you can see Jedi3's history of disruptive edit-warring in the past. While he keeps claiming censorship, he deliberately omits I've left many of his quotes untouched as well. This table I tagged earlier, but can come in handy. Some of its content is ouitdated. Theis differfence bvetween his comments and abruptly stopping discussion at It says almost always should be moved. Regardless I tried to move and discuss in the past but there was no result.

Also I've given reason for all removals in the edit summary. Also Jedi3 keeps talking about Template:Remove]. but here is actually what 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."

Regardless of it not mandating every time, I still tried to discussed with him despite not being mandatory every time. But he even abruptly stops discussion in the middle. Notice the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last article India wasn't even related to our dispute, yet he started repeating the same claims he made at the noticeboards and other talk pages there.


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 No. Still edit-warring as of 29 march. Apart from now, he never discussed at Talk: Aurangzeb for 6 days 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 No. Still edit-warring: [126]. 24 days of difference between subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple 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 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 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 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: [127], [128], [129] NO
Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim 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: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142]. Second one as already said is not about Qasim especially. NO
Malabar rebellion 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: [143] NO

What "cooperation" and censorship this edit-warring user is talking about? He himself doesn't care to cooperate and "censors" and berates when someone takes action against his disruptive edits. He is the most disruptive person I've ever comer across. The list above isn't complete with many other of his acts. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Jedi3

Jedi3 (again) selectively omits his own criticism This is what other editors have said about Jedi3:

  • Second, I also agree that many of the disputed quotes are not very memorable and might be pushing a POV. Therefore, I believe that both users are at fault in this disagreement - UDScott
  • Please stop the ongoing edit-warring you and another user are currently engaged in. I have no idea who is correct in this dispute that involves several pages. - UDScott
  • I have no doubt that you both have your rather intense and prominent biases for and against various views, attitudes and assertions, and I perceive that there are lapses of both logic and fairness in both of your inclinations. - Kalki
  • * What Jedi3 forgot to mention User:DanielTom said about me at AN, "Jedi3 is obviously concerned that MonsterHunter32 is actively censoring quotes critical of Islam and wikihounding him." How? 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.
  • Even though another user removed his quote saying the article is about Ambedkar, not Elst, though he presumably made a grammar mistake. The reason used Jedi3 to revert? Falsely call the user a vandal.

Wikiquote certainly isn't a place for disruptors like Jedi3 who make false claims. He should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 has been told this thousands of 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. Otherwise, the status quo (uncensored) version should be kept by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.

He just keeps ignoring it.

He was warned enough times. He just ignores the warnings.

See here for the massive list of censored quotes.

In every other wiki he would have been banned long ago. Other editors have also said, "isn't it about time to block MonsterHunter32? His only "contributions" to Wikiquote are massive and almost indiscriminate removals of quotes".... It's very clear that he needs to be blocked.

An admin needs to decide what is to be done about this, as this situation cannot continue. The mass censorship and removal of sourced quotes without any explanation and full reasoning on the talkpage is vandalism. And if one restores the censored quotes, he just keeps edit-warring as here and here.

Of the many quotes he has been trying to censor, he only gave some reasoning for TWO quotes on the talkpage, see [144].

I also agreed with what another editor has said on the Admin noticeboard (but I am not sure if he would respect it):

  • "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" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.) --Jedi3 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi3 has been told there is nothing to stop him from a discussion and prove why they should be included.

Instead of edit-warring, Jedi3 should himself attempt to discuss. Even another admin has already judged some of his quotes as non-memorable and merely POV-pushing. It is clear Jedi3 only added his "quotes" just to indulge in POV-pushing without bothering whether they are notable. I have no problem with his quotes being added as long as they are notable and memorable.

Also, if edit-warring reverts like this go on, I don't know how can there be a discussion.

He has recently been briefly blocked for his repetitive posts at multitudes of talk pages, see User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions.

All I've asked let's discuss the quotes one-by-one. Have I asked something unacceptable? The amount of disruption he has shown shows he doesn't care about discussion or cooperation, but only what he wants. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 has only given reasoning for two deleted quotes on the talkpage

Of the massive amount of censored quotes, MonsterHunter32 has so far only given some reasoning for TWO quotes on the talkpage, despite being asked so many times. (Although there is no consensus for these two quotes, therefore third party opinions would be needed). See the summary table below.

Quotation, editorial principle or principle of editorial conduct Jedi3's position MonsterHunter32's position Comments from other editors to assist dispute resolution
* At that date, the Mohammedan conqueror, Mahmoud of Ghizni, crossed India; seized on the holy city of Somnauth; and stripped of its treasures the famous temple, which had stood for centuries--the shrine of Hindoo pilgrimage, and the wonder of the Eastern world. Of all the deities worshipped in the temple, the moon-god alone escaped the rapacity of the conquering Mohammedans. Preserved by three Brahmins, the inviolate deity, bearing the Yellow Diamond in its forehead, was removed by night, and was transported to the second of the sacred cities of India--the city of Benares. The quote is written in eloquent 19th century style English. It describes Somnath as "the wonder of the Eastern world" and implicitly as one of the two most sacred cities of India. (An influential English novel describing an "exotic" place (for English people) like Somnath in vivid detail and making it an important part of the novel's plot is by itself notable.). Apart from all this, it comes from an influential writer/novel. And there are thousands of similar quotes on other wikiquote pages, so the only reason to remove it seems to be because the creator of the page is disliked. Quote meets at least one of the criteria: It is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, or poignant. Issue 1 Issue 1
*Aurangzeb cared nothing for art, destroyed its "heathen" monuments with coarse bigotry, and fought, through a reign of half a century, to eradicate from India almost all religions but his own. He issued orders to the provincial governors, and to his other subordinates, to raze to the ground all the temples of either Hindus or Christians, to smash every idol, and to close every Hindu school. In one year ( 1679-80) sixty-six temples were broken to pieces in Amber alone, sixty-three at Chitor, one hundred and twenty-three at Udaipur; and over the site of a Benares temple especially sacred to the Hindus he built, in deliberate insult, a Mohammedan mosque. He forbade all public worship of the Hindu faiths, and laid upon every unconverted Hindu a heavy capitation tax. As a result of his fanaticism, thousands of the temples which had represented or housed the art of India through a millennium were laid in ruins. We can never know, from looking at India today, what grandeur and beauty she once possessed. Aurangzeb converted a handful of timid Hindus to Islam, but he wrecked his dynasty- and his country. A few Moslems worshiped him as a saint, but the mute and terrorized millions of India looked upon him as a monster, fled from his tax-gatherers, and prayed for his death. During his reign the Mogul empire in India reached its height, extending into the Deccan; but it was a power that had no foundation in the affection of the people, and was doomed to fall at the first hostile and vigorous touch. The Emperor himself, in his last years, began to realize that by the very narrowness of his piety he had destroyed the heritage of his fathers. The quote is written in very eloquent English, which is not surprising since it comes from Will Durant, a very gifted writer. Apart from this, it comes from an influential writer/book, who is also quoted in many other wikiquote articles, and there are thousands of similar quotes on other wikiquote pages, so the only reason to remove it seems to be "because the creator of the page is disliked" (as Kalki said in another discussion involving MonsterHunter32). (It is even quoted in the wikipedia article on Aurangzeb). Quote meets at least one of the criteria: It is witty, pithy, wise, eloquent, memorable, novel, original, or poignant. Issue 2 Issue 2

Jedi3 making false claims again, I have given reasons for removal everywhere

In edit summaries, I have given reasons every time for removal. Not just that, I have also given reasons for removal at many talk pages. It is funny he is claiming I have given reasons only for two.

The only criteria is for quote to be notable. Unless it is it doesn't matter whether Jedi3 decides to call a poignant or witty or eloquent or pithy without him bothering what they mean.

I have showed he keeps on falsely calling them eloquent, poignant, witty, pithy etc despite me already explaining to him at Talk:Somnath temple as well as Talk:Aurangzeb that his quotes don't even fit within the dictionary definition of what he keeps calling them.

I've attempted discussion to resolve all issues at many places where Jedi3 has raised issues Talk:Somnath temple, Talk:Aurangzeb, Talk:Sikandar Butshikan, Talk:Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent, Talk:Malabar rebellion, Talk:India and even many times at Jedi3's own talk page User talk:Jedi3 about articles like Hindu and many others.

I have not stopping Jedi3 from discussion. But thing is he doesn't give two hoots in actual about discussion and cooperation. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi3 I suggest you read Template:Remove which you keep talking about. "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."
Regardless, I tried to discuss with you many times. It says you have to give it in the edit summary. But it doesn't say it is always necessary to move or giving reason in personal everytime is required. Even then I have tried to discussion with you, but you keep stonewalling or abruptly stopping the discussion.
Also at Talk:Malabar rebellion, I did give the reason in full. My reasons for removing your quotes were there in my very first comment after you commented. Not to forget you later irrationally copied your complaint on 29 March and added it chronologically earlier than 24 March deletion discussion. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should also tell Jedi3 Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only add link of a Wikiquote policy here.

I suggest he also read from the same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting - "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

If Jedi3 can disprove what I said about his quotes, then no problem. But he won't stop edit-warring and keeps making bad-faith disruptive edits. I can't do anything anymore about it. His latest edit-warring reverts: [146], [147]. It seems he is hell-bent on getting either of us blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32s mass deletions of sourced quotes

See here for the MonsterHunters massive deletion of sourced quotes in over 100 articles:

He did this out of revenge because he had enough of me, and because (as he claims) I and another editor called him a vandal, and because of the dispute of one quote from Wilkie Collins that he started to mass delete unrelated quotes. see here (I believe I called his mass deletions vandalism at some point, but I'm not sure if I called him a vandal during this time.)

After MonsterHunter32s massive and indiscriminate censorship of sourced quotes in over 100 articles without any explanation on the talkpage it is clear that something needs to be done.

I believe that as a minimum the Template Remove proposal should be enforced, see below.

1. Block

In other wikis he would have been blocked a long time ago for the massive and indiscriminate removal of sourced quotes without discussion that can only be described as censorship or vandalism.

2. Template:Remove proposal

Many editors and admins have told MonsterHunter32 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 version should be kept and/or restored, by applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion.

but he kept ignoring it and refusing to observe it. And he was told so much also by admins, but MonsterHunter continues to refuse to observe it.

But this is a bare minimum that should be observed by him, which should then be the basis for further discussion. Otherwise he will just continue his mass censorship and edit warring, with poor excuses like that his edit summaries for the mass censorship of a massive amount of different quotes are already "enough" discussion, or that he can only do this for one quote at one time and must wait until the discussion is finished before he can do it for any of the other deleted quotes in the other 100 articles.

(The only exceptions should be the removal of vandalism or other uncontroversial matter that is not challenged.)

This is really the bare minimum, that should be observed by MonsterHunter and enforced. It may not be enough, it is really a minimum, but it is a start.

Enforcing it would be necessary (as until now he has persistently refused to do it), a violation would mean a short term block.

In fact, other editors and admins have told MonsterHunter to observe this, but he has refused to do so.

3. Talk page discussion proposal

I also agree with what another editor has proposed on the Admin noticeboard:

  • "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" (that other editor should either be a Wikiquote admin or an editor with more than one year of experience at Wikiquote.)

4. Interaction ban

  • MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3 are hereby banned from interacting with each other. If MonsterHunter32) attempts to interact with Jedi3, talks to him, talks about him, or reverts or deletes any of his actions, he will be blocked, and vice versa.

Comments

Please block edit-warring and misleading Jedi3

Here are the exposure of Jedi3's deliberate omissions and desperate attempts to have his views inserted at all costs. There are many proposals what to do with him:

1. Stop accusing others and discuss

All I have ever said to him even here lately, that let's discuss it one-by-one.

Even discussion at Talk:Somnath temple hasn't been resolved. This is the article where we had the earliest issue. Instead he has started using their talk pages merely to complain and bash me. He never listens.

He himself abruptly stops discussion. Look at the time difference between his subsequent comments at Talk:Somnath temple (24 days), Talk: Aurangzeb (6 days), Talk:India (4 days). The last one wasn't even related to our discussion, still I didn't stop discussion.

2.Jedi3 should be blocked if he misleads or edit-wars again

What Jedi3 forgot to mention in his first "proposal" is its the same DanielTom who edit-warred with me without any justification. He doesn't reveal DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

Jedi3 has no problem in making false claims about quotes. Sikandar Butshikan, indirectly admitting to verbatim to verbatrim copying from Wikipedia before checking the source, even though it isn't about Martand temple.  He also added a quote at Muhammad bin Qasim that isn't about the topic. He made 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.

Someone should also tell Jedi3 Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. You should not link a Wikipedia policy like Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion. Only add link of a Wikiquote policy here.

I suggest he also read from the same Wikipedia policy of STATUSQUO says that if your edit is reverted you should discuss instead of reverting - "Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

3. Topic ban:

It is clear Jedi3 is only interested in POV-pushing even if his quotes are notable. Even another admin has already judged some of his quotes as non-memorable and merely POV-pushing. So he should be topic-banned from all topics he has edit-warred on.

4. Block him immediately

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him,he edit-warred at [148], [149], [150], [151], [152] and [153].

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here.

Jedi3 was recently blocked for his disruptive behaviour of repetitive comments and mass-copying and pasting at talk pages. See User talk:Kalki#Brief block of massive posting actions.

Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already two reverts made the last time I checked: [154], [155].

It is clear this "interaction ban" is a malignant attempt by Jedi3 so I cannot even comment on his edits, let alone touch them. I have never sought any interaction ban on Jedi3. But I do think he is disruptive and should be blocked. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that.
Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning.
Somnath temple, I have also explained to him already, I said that in some of the discussions outside opinions from other editors are needed to progress, and I have asked for them. That is not the same as ending a discussion, in which MH as a rule refuse to make the slightest concession that others might have a different opinion. He will never admit that others might have a different opinion, he will never make the slightest concession to me. That is not good faith discussing. That is why I asked others for opinions from other editors. This is normal procedure also in wikipedia.
The examples given have nothing to do with the massive censorship. He is always using this as an excuse to avoid discussing the censorship. Some of the examples were mistakes, which happen to the best of us, some others are just misleading and misrepresentations. But they are all unrelated to the massive censorship.
MonsterHunter should never again accuse others of edit-warring, after he as been mass deleting massive amounts of quotes from over 100 articles in one hour.--Jedi3 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone prevented you from discussion? Besides are your quotes going to run away that you can't discuss them one at a time? Instead you will be able to easily access which quotes were removed

And it was because your stonewalling and edit-warring on many articles including even one quote like at Talk:Somnath temple that caused this. Initially I started out with only select artickes, but even there you did the same thjmg, I expanded you didn't relent repeating the same disruptive behavior.

If you're not going to discuss, then don't waste my time.

I will say you it is undeniable you are edit-warring because you started doing it and are still doing it.

Also as for censorship. Is censorship also not supression? So yes, Jedi3 has been censoring anyone who takes action and raises issues on his quotes by edit-warring and making false accusations. Yes, Jedi3 has been censorsing the truth with misleading comments about his false, made-up edits where he doesn't check the original source and denies wrongoing.

Jedi3 should never accuse anyone again. He is the most disruptive editor and it is clear he won't improve his behaviour. His only objective is doing what he wants at all costs. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss one at a time, you also need to delete one at a time. Simple as that.
Monsterhunter is using this one-by-one. as an excuse, so that he can refuse to move all the other censored quotes to the talkpage with full reasoning.
You started the mass deletion of the sourced quotes without talkpage discussion, didn't you? I was only after much discussion applying Maintain WP:STATUSQUO during discussion, and after having discussed the matter. Not like you at all. --Jedi3 (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Does censorhip also not mean supression? Yes. Did I try to talk with you in the past, move and discuss? Yes. Did or not you often abruptly stop discussions? Yes.
Did or not you remove or add quotes or revert others under false pretenses yourselves in the past? Yes.
One-by-one is an excuse? I never said I won't move or discuss. If offering to save time, not make it confusing by discussing evetything at once and resolve arguments at least on even one article is an excuse for you, then I couldn't care. The true excuse was you complaining here and asking for an interaction ban. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admin opinions

I think that both MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3 have been behaving in a positively embarrassing manner, and would be inclined to block both of them for a week just to cool them off. Any objections (other than from either of the two of them)? BD2412 T 01:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (not an admin) @BD2412: I think MonsterHunter32 is the troll here, and an extremely disruptive troll at that. He is clearly wikihounding/harassing Jedi3, and has stated that he is going to go (and has gone by now) after all Jedi3's edits in every article that the latter has ever edited. When Jedi3 points this out, MonsterHunter32 returns the accusation in his usual trollish fashion, and claims that Jedi3 is harassing him. This has happened several times. When Jedi3 accused him of sockpuppetry (very reasonably in my opinion), MonsterHunter32 turned the tables (in his mind) and accused Jedi3 (and me) of sockpuppetry. When Jedi3 said MonsterHunter32 refuses to discuss, MonsterHunter32 began to say Jedi3 refuses to discuss. When Jedi3 said MonsterHunter32 is just trying to get the two of them blocked, MonsterHunter32 began to say Jedi3 is just trying to get the two of them blocked. When I said MonsterHunter32 should be blocked, he said I should be blocked. Do you see a pattern here? ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, neither party's conduct has been acceptable in this matter. Both have been laying out accusatory and counter-accusatory screeds all over the project, rather than centrally tackling their issues. I grant that MonsterHunter32 appears to be the initiator of the dispute, and has contributed more to that pattern of conduct. BD2412 T 12:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not an admin) MonsterHunter must be suspended or banned IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that most comments indicate that MonsterHunter32's actions definitely seem the most objectionable, overall, in the current edit wars, and I agree with this range of assessments, but certainly do not seek to ban him as yet, though a block of a week or more might be appropriate. Though I have seen some relatively minor and usually somewhat common problems with some of the additions of Jedi3, and most are not of such character as I myself would have added, they have generally seemed notable enough that I certainly do not approve a campaign of simply removing them, and despite various rationalizations for his actions, the most prominent instigating factor in MonsterHunter32's removals seems to primarily be that he does not like what they say. I have not examined more than a relative few, at this point, and there are some whose apparent points are such as I certainly do not agree with, but such reasons as those, in themselves, should not be a cause for removal. Though I have examined only a few, I believe I have seen at least a couple which were edited in such ways as gave an distorted impression of the author's intentions, which rather irritated me, but I also found at least one prior source where the statements were so edited, so these apparently were not deliberately crafted in such a way by Jedi3. I might extend such quotes and examine others in coming days, but I have remained so busy that I have not been able to give much attention to the matter. I got home just in time to do the QOTD for today, and to make these observations, and must be leaving again soon, but will probably check in here at least a few times later. So it goes… ⨀∴☥☮♥∵ॐ …Blessings. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-talk (discussion by principals)

First thing first, I don't have any problem with the content of Jedi3's quotes. I only have a problem in him adding everything even non-notable quotes. Second, I have never opposed any discussion nor anyone stopped it from happening. I don't mind compromising on quotes like I did with DanielTom at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and Kalki at Taqiyya even though I felt my reasons were genuine. I only say let's discuss one quote at a time. I don’t think it's a big ask. If Jedi3 wanted discussion, he would be discussing instead of complaining. You can check all my edits if you want, no problem. I haven't removed any quote of Jedi3 under non-genuine reasons.

It is easy to see why DanielTom is making comments against me. He has displayed the same behavior of edit-warring and bad-faith accusations in the past. He has been complained in the past by User:Prinsgezinde, at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom and by me too. I will like to invite him to address his behavior.

DanieTom needlessly kept on edit-warring with me at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day despite me already inviting him to talk and offering him a compromise. What's more he revealed his reason to be a baseless belief of me attempting to censor even though I already offered to talk right after his first revert.

Nobody will consider the quote "Yeah, I want to water down the targets..." as worth censoring. Not to mention his baseless accusations of me censoring quotes critical of Islam when most of my edits are not about Islam and even about other religions like Christianity and Hinduism. These actions are quite similar to that of Jedi3. Most articles are about Muslims or Christians, rather than their religions.

As to the other charges levelled by him of me "turning the tables", I'll like to ask whether any of this is made-up:-

Jedi3 resumed edit-warring right after UDSCOTT warned him, he edit-warred at [156], [157], [158], [159], [160] and [161]. Jedi3 resumed edit-warring after his week-long block expired. These are only a few examples: here, a here, here. Jedi3 again resumed edit-warring today. Already three reverts made recently by him: [162], [163], [164]

I already warned Jedi3 against his constant edit-warring stating it will result in a block for us. He still doesn't listen. Have I made it up?

Also here's what I didn't do like Jedi3: Use a false reason to remove quotes, add made-up quotes copied from Wikipedia as admitted by Jedi3, add quotes not about topic at articles like Muhammad bin Qasim or Alauddin Khalji. And Jedi3 deliberately refuses to accept this wrongdoing by calling it a "content dispute": [165], [166] despite being shown the original sources in last part of my comment here.

Nor I insult others by calling them annoying. It was Jedi3 who baselessly started calling my edit vandalism. He had made similar accusations of vandalism against another editor too.

After all this evidence of Jedi3's disruptive behaviour, can it not be said with confidence that Jedi3 has no interest in discussion or honesty or good faith assumption? Why is Jedi3 still here? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever deficiencies or flaws might apparently exist in some of Jedi3’s edits or motives regarding some of them, I believe that most people who have examined the situation at all, do not find most of his additions extremely deplorable, and simply find the extreme rational deficiencies in your evident lack of logic and sense, and willingness to ignore, deny, or remain oblivious to, or simply distort many of the most significant statements made by others, in your determination to remove most of them, far more appalling than you seem to have as yet developed your capacities to recognize.
Your attitude, very often, seems to be, for the most part, that anything you see fit to remove should stay removed, and anything other than acceptance of your own decisions on such matters amounts to "edit-warring" or "violations".
I believe that most who have observed many of the mass of interactions which have occurred, agree that, on the whole, you have been the most grievously zealous in ignoring or disregarding the rational or considerate counsel of others, and it is you, far more than he, who is likely to receive at least a week-long or even longer term block, such as I believe might be appropriate, and though even a permanent ban has been suggested, I personally, do not, as yet, support such a measure. I have just very briefly checked in here now, must be leaving again, and have many other things to take care of, for at least several hours. I expect to be back before the end of the day. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC) + tweaks[reply]
If you want proof that I am not removing quotes I don’t like, here it is: Recently, I added quotes that criticised Aurangzeb: [167], [168].
This is not the first time I added any critical quotes on such topics and it's not to show off to anyone. All of the above quotes are notable.
Haven't you realised the real motive of Jedi3? It is clear that it is simply to push his agenda of hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes not memorable or notable. But I am not here for his motives, simply his motives affecting his judgment. I wouldn't have minded if his critical quotes were notable.
Yes I edit-warred as well and unlike Jedi3 I accept my mistakes. I never said I had no fault. I listen to opinions of others, but Jedi3 never cared about anything. Had he been cooperative even somewhat, I never would have taken action. Would I do it again? Of course not. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem and the issue that you should have been addressing is this
By constantly talking about other things instead, you are making it appear that you are trying to obfuscate the issue and trying to avoid discussing about the real issue wich is your massive mass deletion of sourced quotes in over 100 articles without any explanation on the 100+ talkpages or even moving the deleted quotes to the talkpage. Aurangzeb is one of the few articles in which you have added some quotes, and not only removed quotes, and I have in general not opposed your additions (although I didn't find them always appropriate, but as far as I can remember I have not deleted them (except perhaps once accidentally, after you added a quote just after mass deleting other quotes)). --Jedi3 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop you personal attacks. You have made personal attacks about the alleged personal, or religious beliefs of me and other editors in the past, and you have been told to stop doing this. That is another major problem, instead of discussing the real issue, you are making personal attacks, or are making comments that consists of deliberately misleading misrepresentations, or are (as others have said) "returning all the accusation in your usual trollish fashion", which makes it look like you are trying to obfuscate the issue and trying to avoid discussing about the real issue.
I was going to add more comments, but since it seems like it is going to be resolved soon, I am not going to post it now. --Jedi3 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jedi3 As already said it's not the content I have problem with. It's you adding non-notable quotes for one reason. And what I'm stating is not about any religious beliefs. I am not talking aboit your religion but simply why you are disrupting here.
When you started claiming I'm censoring or being a vandal is okay. But what I said is a personal attack? Troll is a personal attack. The "others" you talk about, who called me a troll and recently said I was replying in a "trollish fashion", is the same User:DanielTom who like you edit-warred with me even though I offered a compromise. I would have never removed your quotes had they been notable. I am not saying it lightly about what the true reason is: spreading hatred against non-Hindus whether Christians or Muslims no-matter what you have to do. It is clear from your edits.
You had no problem in complaining when your new quotes were removed, but you were okay when your reverts removed mine. This quote is not mine, but you did delete a quote on Muslim conquests of the Indian subcontinent under baseless reason. You also reverted a user baselessly calling him a vanadal, a personal attack.
The reason why I couldn't add more quotes because your repetitive arguments and disruptions didn't leave any time. Had it not been for your disruption, I would have been able to add much more notable quotes Your disruption cannot be allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also User:Jedi3 since you claim all of my quotes aren't appropriate, please explain so here why you think they are not. If you're just saying it to undermine me, then that is just another bad-faith comment. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-wiki canvassing

I am from English Wikipedia and I have not edited Wikiquote much. Only edited it when I thought it was very necessary. It seems that MonsterHunter32 has been engaging in off-wikiquote canvassing per this diff by attempting to recruit members from English Wikipedia against Jedi3 and some "editor with right-wing views". Capitals00 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only gave my opinion about Jedi3 and DanielTom who I thought were ganging up on me User:Capitals00. Jedi3 may not have did it off-wiki, but he himself has been involved in canvassing. See [169] and [170]. I didn't ask Kautilya3 to support me however, only asked him to comment. If it's wrong then I apologize. Anyway as we have been given an interaction ban, I wouldn't comment about him or argue any longer. I was only here to defend myself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only bar in the policy regarding canvassing is on stealth canvassing. However, I openly invited the user to opinionate. I may have given my side of the story but I'm not forcing them or inviting them to influence the discussion. They can comment against me as well. The comment is easily visible to anyone. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Please stop saying I am right wing. It's false and you don't know me. How is that even allowed on Wikipedia? ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure as long as you stop calling me a troll, Muslim apologist, censoring "quotes critical of Islam" (the topic is something else), annoying etc and whatever you throw at me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban imposed

An interaction ban is hereby imposed on MonsterHunter32 and Jedi3 for the next thirty days. You are not to direct comments to each other or respond to comments by one another. You are not to make comments about one another to third parties. You are not to try to bait the other with comments suggesting that practices of the other are improper. You are not to use the e-mail feature to send emails to third parties about each other. You are not to remove quotes added by the other to any page, nor are you to restore quotes previously removed from any page by the other. Other editors will, in time, examine quotes that have been added or removed for propriety; let them do so. There are plenty of things that need doing around this project that do not require any kind of interaction. I recommend that you find those and do them. Violation of this interaction ban will result in an immediate 30 day block for the violator. That is all. BD2412 T 17:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412, if I see a violation of the ban, who should I notify without myself violating the ban? --Jedi3 (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any violation in the ban I will report it here. Thank you for your time BD2412 and to other admins. I don’t mind in any admin examining it. As I said I only removed the quotes for being non-notable and non-memorable. I also have no problem at all with anyone in discussing the quotes with me and others. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Can I ask for a few clarifications?

  • "You are not to remove quotes added by the other to any page, nor are you to restore quotes previously removed from any page by the other. Other editors will, in time, examine quotes that have been added or removed for propriety; let them do so."

Who will be doing this (examine and restore the deleted quotes in over 100 articles) and by when? Because it could as well mean never, that it will simply be forgotten, or that maybe one percent only will be examined, and the rest forgotten. Will there at least be some kind of checklist for the quotes in 100+ articles, so that no article is forgotten?

Also, an interaction ban should be fair to both parties. As a matter of fact, almost all my contributions over the past months were deleted in one hour.

Therefore this proposal does put me in a much worse situation than the other party.

A proposal like this should be fair to both sides, as much as possible.

Why not use the status quo version as of April 18th, before the mass deletions? The quotes can then still be challenged by other editors in the usual processes. And if there are concerns by other editors, in any of the articles, just tell me the article name, or put a cleanup tag on the article, and I will look into it, if you don't have time for doing it yourself. (Unfortunately, I cannot comment more without violating this ban, but in the past I have also agreed to the removal of quite a few of the quotes I added. I am very open to remove quotes I added on good faith grounds. For example when UDScott challenged one article, I agree to delete and redirect the article to another one.)

That would be more fair.

Can the proposal be amended? What do other editors and admins think? --Jedi3 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been all over Wikiquote for days now. I have no doubt that all the actions of the past few weeks will be appropriately addressed, in due time. If they don't, you can take them up again after the interaction ban has ended. BD2412 T 18:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have blocked MonsterHunter32 for one day for referencing the other party when commenting on the IBan on his talk page. Any administrator who disagrees with this is free to unblock, but I think that it is needed. I intend to impose the above-stated full thirty-day block for any further issues. BD2412 T 18:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your reply. I don't want to criticize too much, I know admin work is also not easy, but another admin told me over one month ago, admins are looking into it, they are sorting it out, and after over a month, there was not much sign of it. Therefore I am a bit worried that it would simply be forgotten, and with 100+ articles, I can easily see that most will be forgotten. I think you slightly overestimate it when you say they will all be surely addressed. Even in the most glaring cases, where even ALL the article categories were deleted, it has not been restored as of yet. But if I have the option to take it up after 30 days it should be fine.

In that case I only ask for one amendment.

After the interaction ban is over, you said I can take them up again. But if I do this then, I don't want being again reverted by the other party of the ban. Other editors uninvolved in this ban can of course challenge them or remove them again, just not the other party of this ban. That should be added out of fairness and to avoid potential conflict. I don't want that the same thing happens right after the ban again.

Maybe amend it like this: If the quotes removed by the other party were not appropriately addressed after 30 days, I can take them up again after the interaction ban has ended. The other party of this ban should then not challenge this for another 60 (?) days. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that it makes sense to address the post-IBan environment at this point. BD2412 T 19:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, the fact that after 30 days, I can take them up again and restore them, is fine. But there will be no post-IBan rule in place right after the ban, that would have to be sorted out if again necessary (hopefully not).

But consider this:

Imagine if I had mass reverted everything back before this ban.

Then I would now be in a better situation.

So I am effectively being punished for showing much patience (by not mass reverting, but waiting and discussing instead), since as explained above it puts me in worse position than the other party.

I do not think that showing much patience should in the end put me in a worse position than if I had done the opposite.

Also the others in the discussion above have said they are considering a stricter ban on the other party than on me, but this ban puts me in a worse position than the other party (as explained above). (Since almost all of my contributions over the past months were deleted, while those of the other party were kept.)

What happens if I accidentally add a quote that the other party once deleted? It puts on me only the obligation and effort to manually check in all related articles if this could be the case or not.

As i didn't delete anything (that falls under the clause), it only punishes me, only my contributions fall under it. Just strike these words "you are not to restore quotes previously removed from any page by the other", which only punishes one side, and it would be much more fair.

An interaction ban should not, through the backdoor, punish only one of the parties, it should be fair and its one and only function should be to avoid conflict. That is not just an interaction ban, it is an interaction ban coupled with a weaker form of a topic ban on only one of the parties.

Therefore I have proposed above to use the Maintain WP:STATUSQUO version as of April 18th:

"Why not use the status quo version as of April 18th, before the mass deletions? The quotes can then still be challenged by other editors in the usual processes. And if there are concerns by other editors, in any of the articles, just tell me the article name, or put a cleanup tag on the article, and I will look into it, if you don't have time for doing it yourself......."

Therefore, I would like to know also the opinion of one or two other admins or experienced editors about this. --Jedi3 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC) Pinging editors who have discussed previously: @Kalki: @DanielTom: @Just A Regular New Yorker:@IOHANNVSVERVS:@Peter1c: @UDScott: [reply]

I would prefer if the interaction ban would be longer (and at the same time, the Maintain WP:STATUSQUO version before the incident would be applicable). --Jedi3 (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you leave things as they are for now. We will see what happens in a month. BD2412 T 20:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I made some reasonable points that are worth discussing and would like to know also the opinion of one or two others about it. I will accept it, but there is no harm in having it discussed. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Remove

I propose to change the wording in the user warning template from

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. If it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead moving to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. Thanks.

to

Quotes should never be removed without a comment in the edit summary, and should always be moved to the Talk page (except in the case of clear vandalism) with a note that they were removed from the article, giving full reasoning for each removed quote. If it is a misattribution, the quote should not be removed, instead moving to a "Misattributed" section, where explanation of the misattribution can be made in a subbullet. If you continue to violate this, you will be blocked. Thanks.

I also propose that it is upgraded to guidelines status, or made part of an existing guideline. --Jedi3 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this wording. First, there are cases other than clear vandalism, such as an editor mistakenly putting a quote on the wrong page (e.g., a typically good editor adding a quote about fish to Birds, and quote about birds to Fish). Well-meaning editors do sometimes add bad quotes. Second, we are not going to put "If you continue to violate this, you will be blocked" in a template that might be used for first contact with a new editor. BD2412 T 17:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


We do have Template:Spam which says " If you continue...., you will be blocked from editing." So there is a precedent for such a warning. The problem is that the warning template is basically worthless if it so sketchy defined. The deletionist can always just claim "almost always" means "never". We could as well just delete it if we don't define somewhere what this means. The exceptions must be defined somewhere. Otherwise it is simply not enforceable, it is basically a joke; but i agree that at least a joke is better usable for first contact with a new editor :) Maybe, it should at least be enforceable if an admin posts it on another editor's talkpage? --Jedi3 (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring (1RR) proposal

I propose to add the following to Wikiquote:Wikiquette:

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the one-revert rule (1RR), the violation of which leads to a block.
The one-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

This is based on the 3RR rule on wikipedia, but since this is a smaller wiki, I think a 1RR rule is better. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Wikihounding and Harassment proposal

I propose to add the following to Wikiquote:Civility or to Wikiquote:No personal attacks:

Hounding on Wikiquote (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikiquote.
The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

This is based on the rule in wikipedia. --Jedi3 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DanielTom's comments and edits

I may get in trouble but truth needs to be spoken of what I've been facing. I hope admins can help solve this issue. User:DanielTom has been attacking me for past quite some time. Whether it be his claims of censorship, being a sockpuppet or personal attacks like me being anmoying or troll. His behaviour in past has been complained by other users as well including User:Prinsgezinde on Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard#Unprofessional and uncivil behaviour of DanielTom who complains of his bias and by User:CensoredScribe too. CensoredScribe also complained of his bullying behaviour on his talk page. I will like to invite both of them here to comment. Notably, he also attacked CensoredScribe as a troll.

He has also made personal attacks, calling me annoying, a troll, delusional. Not to mention his threat despite himself edit-warring, calling me a Muslim apologist.

Recently, on Wikiquote:Wikiquote he reverted my revert because the original editor User:Beefybufoon was called as my "sockpuppet". That claim of sockpuppetry was rejected. Despite this DanielTon claims I "changed the policy" both in his edit-summary and here. Of course he doesn't directly admit sockpuppetry, but it's clear. He has also supported the bad-faith accusations of sockpuppetry against me in the past including here and here. I'll also like to invite Beefybufoon to give his opinion here. I have already alerted him about the edit-warring over his edit.

While I am not interested on reverting him on WQ:WQ, I don't want him to be allowed on any articles concerning Jedi3 and me because it is clear that the bias and bullying behaviour is still there and he is only harassing me. And at the same time he has tried to influence others against me.

His disruptive behaviour was especially shown at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Nobody will consider the quote "Yeah, I want to water down the targets..." as anything worth censoring, yet he claims he thought I was censoring.

Just after his first revert of my removing a non-notable quote, I invited him to discussion. Notably, I had started the discussion even before DanieTom first reverted me.

He still reverted me three times more: [171], [172] and [173]. I still kept inviting him for discussion in my edits. I had already offered him a compromise meanwhile. Despite my good-faith gesture for hours even befiore he came, he still accuses that he though of it as "censorship" even though it isn't worth "censoring".

At this noticeboard he baselessly accused me of censoring quotes about Islam. As I already said: 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.

He keeps on quoting about the same Wikipedia policy same WP:STATUSQUO. If I point things like that out, then according to him I'm "turning the tables". When confronted with his bad-faith behaviour he simply refuses to accept or apologize like here.

It is clear he harasses others including me. I request that either DanielTom be temporarily blocked as punishment or an interaction ban be placed on him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also request User:Kalki, User:BD2412, User:UDScott and User:Jusjih to give their opinions. I hope I'm allowed a full redressal. If they don't agree then I'll withdraw the complaint. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted you, as I explained over and over again on your talk page (though you still get it wrong/deliberately lie about it here), was because you need to get consensus on the talk page of the policy first before changing it. Here is what my edit summary said: "restore status quo; if you want to change policy, discuss at the talk page first". It has to be that way, otherwise anyone could change any policy and even remove whole paragraphs (e.g. of the blocking policy) and no one could revert it. Obviously the onus is on the person changing the policy, if that policy change is opposed, to gain consensus for the change. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it User:DanielTom, from not just here but here and here as well. But you shouldn't quote Wikipedia policies.
The policy has been changed in the past as well. You never objected to it. But if I revert for others being accused of my sock, then you do. Don't use status quo to harass others and edit-war. There is no onus on me, it's on you. I took action against what I thought was a bad-faith accusation. That's it. You have a problem? Discuss it with those you have one. But if you accuse me, that cannot be allowed. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:DanielTom, it seems the situation has already been answered by the other editors ButwhatdoIknowbest and Beefybufoon, it is time stopped using excuses for edit-warring as you did here. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:DanielTom the quote in question is from User:Nvvchar and is not from the party who I had an interaction ban with. You are using poor excuses claiming quotes "critical of Islam". The quote in question is not about Islam. It's about a Muslim ruler. Also when you call others a "Muslim apologist", don't criticise me. DanielTom is edit-warring with multiple editors both at Tipu Sultan and [Wikiquote:Wikiquote. I am tired of DanielTom's attacks, please give an interaction ban or block him temporarily. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You want to have an interaction ban so I (probably one of the most active editors in reverting vandalism and the like) can't revert any of your destructive edits. Everyone here can see it, don't worry. And 2 perfectly justified reverts is not edit warring. But you are very much guilty of it, emphatically. I just don't understand why admins haven't blocked you yet. But you will be blocked, you'll see. Your edits are by their nature destructive. So it's just a matter of when. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MonsterHunter32: Cease this behavior immediately. Irrespective of whether you are under an interaction ban with an editor, do not edit war, do not accuse other editors of "lying" about the propriety of quotes or of being a "troll", and do not remove quotes from a page unless you are immediately moving them to the talk page for discussion. You had agreed to move all the quotes you removed from pages to their respective talk pages, so I don't see how you have time to engage in this sort of exchange with so much of that task left undone. BD2412 T 14:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 DanielTom himself has attacked me. He has made personal attacks, calling me annoying, a troll, delusional. Not to mention his threat despite himself edit-warring, calling me a Muslim apologist. These are some examples. I will cease, but you must tell him to stop attacking me. Action must go for both sides. If he hadn't attacked me, I would have stayed away from him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More accurate would be, if I hadn't reverted your censorship of quotes (so far only 2 quotes, both added by other editors in the first place, never by me), you would have stayed away from me (and kept on removing quotes at full speed). ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just told him to stop attacking you in the above post. If this admonition is not clear enough, I will clarify: MonsterHunter23, you should not make any personal attacks on any other editor on this site. If you do so, you will be blocked. BD2412 T 15:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 Thank you. While I would have left DanielTom alone, he started personally attacking me and tried to justify it. Please keep him away from me. I'm not going to edit-war with him nor want to but if he attacks me again I hope you take action immediately. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk)
BD2412, can you restore the inscription on the sword of Tipu censored by MonsterHunter32 here? It appears in recent biographies of Tipu and other books and seems to be a popular question online, with whole articles devoted to it (for example this one on hoaxorfact.com). It also appears in Wikipedia's article on Tipu Sultan, so why shouldn't it appear in Wikiquote's article where it more properly belongs? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this quote has been moved to the talk page. I suggest making the case on the talk page for inclusion of the quote. Give it a few days there and if there is no consensus to keep the quote removed from the page, I (or another admin) will restore it there. BD2412 T 15:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will do so, but I worry about the precedent. What if someone removes Shakespeare's "To be or not to be", would I have to explain why it should be retained on the talk page and then wait a few days for it to be restored? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not think that this is slippery slope towards which we are heading, I do appreciate that we need to have a process in place for addressing situations like this. In the long run, however, a few days of even a key quote being off the page is a small matter in the lifetime of the resource. BD2412 T 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 You had blocked me for mere mentioning of a name. But User:DanielTom keeps on making baseless accusations of censorship or censorship of quotes critical of Islam. Except it is jot about Islam. I cannot find the quote beyond 3 books of the same one author. See here. I can't even seem to find it much on search itself. The only exclusion is another book on Archive.org I found. Did I make it up that is not famous or notable? Not at all. I request you to restrain all his baseless claims which have become a harassement for me. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Try Googling "My victorious sabre is lightning for the destruction of the unbelievers" using quotation marks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom I can find the part without the Wellseley receiving the sword etc, ie only the inscription itself is notable. And here you were claiming I was "censoring" when I really couldn't find it with the non-notable "The sword of Tipu, i.e., the one he usually used and reckoned distinctively his own, being one usually placed in his Musnud...".
How about I remove the non-notable part and let the inscription which does appear somewhat notable, remain? Also here's a suggestion, next time only argue over the part that is notable or famous. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, that discussion already took place on my talk page months ago; see, now you understand that you're a Johnny-come-lately, acting like a bull in a china shop. The sword inscription quote was given adequate context and moved to the article's About section. I don't mind if just the inscription part is retained, provided you give enough information in a sub-bullet to make its origin clear. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come on User:DanielTom, you're calling me a johnny-come-lately but the same discussion you're talking about actually nowhere has you proving the notability but calling the quote as the topic's own. Have you looked at your own claims? You're also even using Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. The source it uses may be so. Please make a better argument and for once try to prove notability beforehand. This is the problem, you don't care what you're doing or saying. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I said in that discussion from months ago was that I found an article on hoaxorfact.com dedicated to that quote alone. Then I researched it and found the earliest source for the translation of the sword inscription, which also provided good enough context as to its origins. Here's another article devoted to it on indulgexpress.com, from six days ago. It is also included in published biographies of Tipu like The Real Tipu: A Brief History Of Tipu Sultan (1991) and Tipu Sultan: A Biography (2017). The quote is controversial but popular in some circles, and has been making rounds on social media (Facebook, Twitter, and also Quora), so I would expect that my effort in adequately sourcing it would be appreciated, but no—you simply removed everything from the article, repeatedly, without bothering to ask first. And yes, that is annoying. ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DanielTom No where in your discussion on your talk page you proved the notability. You are still not contradicting that you used Wikipedia. The quotes may make round on social media not because of notability, but because of bias as well. But still social media is not a reliable source.
Also the websites you're adding, like this one only mentions the inscription. Not the non-notable part I deleted. Had I not taken action will you have removed the non-notable part? Of course not. You never even bothered to mention which part was before I pointed out which one wasn't. You're only making poor excuses. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have ever had a problem including some extended content around the notable portion of a quote, where this content provides context. BD2412 T 18:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 The extended content was too long, unnecessary and non-notable. So instead, I shortened it considerably and added it in the bullet point where people can easily read it separately and find the context. Hope there's no problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have arrived at a reasonable solution here. BD2412 T 21:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two vandals (socks)

Not sure where to report this other than here but since they don't qualify for glock can a local sysop please block Salo6969420 and YourMomGay69696420 as blatantly obvious socks/vandals? Chrissymad (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough - take action against DanielTom

I don't know why User:BD2412 blocks me over a name mentioned in a completely another context where the person is not named, and warns me of attacking and edit-warring with DanielTom. But he hasn't even once said anything to User:DanielTom who has edit-warred and attacked multiple editors.

He has made personal attacks against me personally, calling me a troll, delusional, annoying here and here and a "Muslim apologist". Notably, he also attacked CensoredScribe as a troll. The whole list of his attacks will be too lengthy.

Under the guise of WP:STATUSQUO, he is edit-warring with multiple editors even though it doesn't allow any edit war under any circumstances. If he wants consensus with others good, but he shouldn't edit-war with three people or revert a revert of a false allegation. At Wikiquote:Wikiquote he has edit-warred with 3 users in 2 days: [174],[175], [176] and [177]. I don't care what his motives were there or the dispute. But demanding consensus or statusquo is not an excuse for edit-warring.

However I'm happy in his edit-war with others, he finally has no way to baselessly claim that the quote is sourced so it should remain.

This isn't his first edit-warring either. I don't know about edit-warring with others, but he has done with me multiple times. The earliest example. Just after his first revert of my removing a non-notable quote, I invited him to discussion. Notably, I had started the discussion even before DanieTom first reverted me. He still reverted me three times more: [178], [179] and [180]. I still kept inviting him for discussion in my edits. I had already offered him a compromise meanwhile.

Also on Tipu Sultan, he did the same thing: [181], [182],[183].

He also casts bad-faith aspersions on others even though there is only one "editor with very little edits". User:Prinsgezinde and User:CensoredScribe have already complained him in the past including recently. His actions are disruptive. I also invite User talk:Butwhatdoiknow who DanielTom lectured about consensus and User:Beefybufoon who he has also reverted.

There can be no justification for personal attacks and edit-warring. If admins fail to even warn him this but take action over a mere name in another context, then this is patently ridiculous. Enough is enough of his behaviour. Is this a joke? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to become disruptive. One section with a provocative title against me is enough, thank you. Why post the same bogus (and I might add hypocritical) complaints over and over and over again? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you attack others it isn't provacative. When your disruptive actions like edit-warring and attacks are proved, it is bogus. I wouldn't have complained, if not for your recent edit-warring and your past incitements after the previous complaint. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MonsterHunter32, I don't even have the time to respond to all your distortions. I'll just remind you that you are the reigning edit war champion hands down. And you have called me a vandal, a liar (for telling the truth), and a troll repeatedly. I mean, how can you write complaints like these with a straight face? ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because you were the one who started insulting me. When you edit-warred and misrepresented things, I respond in kind. As for edit-warring champ, in all cases you start the edit-warring. The admins should take action. If not, then this has become a joke. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has become a joke indeed. You have edit warred against anyone who has dared to revert your bad edits, including with admins. And in the end I was always proven right as even you ended up adding back the quotes that I had restored and that you had wrongly removed. I still don't understand why admins haven't indef blocked you yet. You will continue to be incredibly disruptive to Wikiquote and wasteful of everyone's time until you are finally blocked. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First you talk about revert, then you blame me of edit-war. As for being right, I already proved the part of Tipu Sultan's quote wasn't notable or necessary. But let's forget all that.
We can disgree on who is right or wrong. But we can all agree that the admins rarely bother to uphold the rules stringently here. Anyone can do anything it seems. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielTom, I like to think that no one is beyond redemption or reformation. BD2412 T 19:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MonsterHunter32, I once blocked DanielTom for three months for violating an interaction ban. Just ask him. I will not hesitate to drop the hammer where it is needed. I don't think you want that. Right now, you are being the most provocative and disruptive force in this project. BD2412 T 19:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 Actually I tried to cooperate every time with him. If you have blocked him in past, why don't you punish him again for misbehaving? You can call me most provocative and disruptive, block me for mere mention of a name, you can warn me. It was he who started edit-warring and insulting. I am only demanding justice. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because I'm doing the ungrateful job of protecting the project from disruptive bad actors like you, and getting relentlessly and personally attacked for it as a reward? Justice would not be kind to you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify what edit warring means. If you make a bold edit, such as deleting a quote that you feel does not belong on the page, and another editor reverts your bold edit, that is not edit warring. That is merely a reversion for purposes of discussion. If you revert that edit and restore your bold edit, that is edit warring - even if, in the edit summary, you propose to discuss the matter. The action of reverting indicates an absence of an actual desire to discuss. BD2412 T 19:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 I invited him many times to discussion on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day but he still kept edit-warring. Read the original comment. Does reverting again and again look like merely for purpose of discussion? Isn't it true at Tipu Sultan, he never bothered to discuss until you told him? I would have discussed anytime. Let me state it - There is no justification for reverting again and again aka edit warring.
The discussion can be held without reverting. It's not about status quo. If he wanted to discuss, he would have. He is simply making sure the preferred version remains there. Reverting once is not edit-warring. But intention to continue edit-warring is. And that he has shown. I suggest you stop defending and take action against him. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did discuss on the talk page, as can be seen at Talk:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. As to Tipu Sultan, I had already discussed the quote in question on my talk page and researched it months before you decided to remove it again and again (only to finally add it back later). Please stop with the distortions. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook example of edit warring.

Give me a break. You didn't bother to discuss until I repeatedly invited you to discuss. Just after your first revert of my removing a non-notable quote, I invited him to discussion. Notably, I had started the discussion even before you first reverted me. You still reverted me three times more: [184], [185] and [186]. I still kept inviting him for discussion in my edits. I had already offered him a compromise meanwhile. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also the discussion on your talk page was not about notability of the quote. You are distorting. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "let's discuss" while serially reverting does not lift the reverts out of being edit warring. It makes the invitation to discuss disingenuous. BD2412 T 20:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 Oh and what do you say when I had started the discussion even before he first reverted me. What do you say when another user reverts again and again despite being invited to discussion? Look at the number of reverts he did despite being invited to discussion. That is not edit-warring? Or only I am responsible for you? Oh and I already offered a compromise meanwhile. Note how much time he took in responding. What do you say when you are discussing the other side doesn't? MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no binary discussions here. If you want to make a bold change, you need to generate a consensus for that change, which means that you generally need to get more than a single other person engaged in discussing it. Discussion is not only aimed at "the other side", but at the entire project. The discussion about what should be on the page can occur irrespective of what is actually on the page. BD2412 T 20:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You started a discussion but waited no time to revert me. You didn't wait for its conclusion. You edit warred. I took a few more minutes than usual to form my response because you kept reverting me like a madman. Oh and by the way, I didn't just revert your removals, I added new secondary sources as well. Anyway, this is getting tiresome now. Once you are accused of anything, you accuse the accuser of the exact same thing. So it's hard to deal with your distortions. @BD2412: your image reveals that you've considered blocking me recently. I'll just say that I've seen admins revert the same removals of content more than once (like Kalki's reversions of MonsterHunter32's removals at Taqiyya recently), which, while perhaps not 100% correct, is I've noticed Wikiquote's long standing way of dealing with people who remove content or who are engaged in vandalism. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 So what do you call when the other side doesn't respond when being (repeatedly) invited to discussion? What do you call when you offer a consensus and they still revert? If discussion can occur without what happens on a page, then take so long a time in responding? And later the other side says they saw it as a "censorship" when there's nothing worth censoring?
User:DanielTom are you saying you didn't discuss because you were reverted even when you knew about the discussion and were invited? That sounds like "edit-warring" by you. Had you cared to discuss, there would have been none. Distorting? Look at anything above. These are all the results of your actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond. Less than an hour is not a long time. Discussions can take days, weeks, or even months. And as BD2412 pointed out, the edit war was started by you (as always). ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He made a very clear statement that you should discuss when there is a discussion. Despite knowing and being invited many times, you continued to revert and didn't discuss for long. Even at Taqiyya, my actual intention was to offer a compromise. And I did offer a compromise instead of repeatedly, I only revrted once but didn't revert ever again. I also started a discussion at User talk:Kalki#My reasons are genuine for compromise at the same time. Funny, even Kalki agreed with some of my assertions. I later simply shifted the quote to disputed after a compromise. You however, only edit-war. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except I added new secondary sources for the quote and discussed too, and you started the edit war. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you say you add some sources, you don't need to discuss anymore? And I already said that it isn't notable by itself. It was part of a statement. Another wasn't the same but a variation. It took more than 3 hours before you bothered to comment. That too after I offered the compromise. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you hadn't started edit warring and reverting me, perhaps I would have responded sooner. When you start a discussion in good-faith, you should wait for other editors (not just me) to take part in it, and not use it as an excuse to edit war and get things your way in the main article before consensus for your proposed change can be reached. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You already knew of a discussion, yet reverted and didn't discuss. You were invited multiple times, yet only kept revrting and didn't discuss. You didn't bother to show up until after my last edit. You don't attempt consensus or discuss, but blame others. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly one minute later, so I had to be typing my response before that. But what that shows is that you started the edit war, and I walked away from it. In other words, I showed restraint, by letting your last edits (slightly modifying but adding back the quote) stand. It was a compromise, which you seemed happy about, so I don't get the point of all this back and forth. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
18 minutes difference between your first two reverts. 7 minutes between yours and mine when I first invited you. I waited over an hour after your second revert. "Restraint" in not even responding after I invited you so many times or not bothering to discuss until I simply offered a compromise on the edit page. I don't know if that even can be called a discussion by you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to respond to you when you were reverting me (I posted some of what I was preparing to say on the talk page in my edit summaries, to no use), but even putting that aside, what you have shown is that I started discussing the minute you stopped reverting, which just proves my original point that if you hadn't started the edit war and kept on reverting me like the world depended on it, I would have responded sooner. Again, I don't see the point of this back and forth about an edit war that you started and a content dispute that's already resolved. You're just wasting my time. I would prefer to be creating articles about Chinese poets, if you don't mind. ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get a new notification when you're on the same page. Even if you did open a new one, you could have completed the response. I waited over an hour after your second revert, but your "trying to respond" didn't come. Nor this is the only place you edit-warred. I am not interested in your disruptions too. The admins don't care to act it seems, not even warn you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you started the edit war. If admins cared to act, they would have to block you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you started it and it would have been avoided had you actually wanted to discuss. But let's drop it, as you already said no one cares to act. There's no more point in complaining. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As BD2412 just explained to you, "If you make a bold edit, such as deleting a quote that you feel does not belong on the page, and another editor reverts your bold edit, that is not edit warring. That is merely a reversion for purposes of discussion. If you revert that edit and restore your bold edit, that is edit warring - even if, in the edit summary, you propose to discuss the matter." See his annotations to the image above. It's very clear that you started the edit war. Not just in that article, but in many others (with other editors). Denying it doesn't change that fact. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I waited over an hour after the second revert. Not to mention about 2 hours passed before you finally commented after I simply offered a compromise in edit summary. The same BD2412 made the remark:The discussion about what should be on the page can occur irrespective of what is actually on the page. If you wanted to discuss, you could have long ago especially when you had time. Who started it is visible. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, discussions can take days, weeks, or even months. When you start a discussion in good-faith, you should wait for other editors, not just me, to take part in it, and not use it as an excuse to start an edit war. ~ DanielTom (talk) 05:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do discussions take hours or weeks to start? I am not talking about resolution. But you didn't even "discuss" until hours. You started the edit-warring. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can deny it as many times as you want, but everyone can see that you started the edit war. And this is just one instance. You've edit warred in many other articles with other editors. You've even edit warred against admins, as I show below. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those who bothered start the discussion haven't started edit-war. Those who keep reverting without bothering to discuss did. As for edit-warring with admins, I stopped with a few revrts after being warned even though had problem with the other side for posting content at the unrelated Talk:India. Unlike the other side which doesn't even stop after being blocked. After that, I cooperated with the same admin Kalki at Taqiyya. That's the difference: I admit mistakes and I correct them and I learn from them. But you don't even bother to think you did anything wrong. On one page, you reverted three users, and you're lecturing me. The account of your "righteous deeds" is below. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so everyone reading this understands what kind of edit-warring disruptor I'm dealing with, here's another illustrative example: an editor (Jedi3) starts a discussion about his (MonsterHunter32's) removals, then:
    • MonsterHunter32 reverts him;
    • When Jedi3 tries to restore the discussion, MonsterHunter32 reverts him again;
    • Seeing that MonsterHunter32 wrongly called the discussion "vandalism" in his revert, I restore it and warn him that he could be blocked for his behavior. MonsterHunter32 reverts me;
    • Kalki (an admin) reverts MonsterHunter32 and restores the discussion. MonsterHunter32 reverts Kalki.
Kalki reverted him again and MonsterHunter32 only stopped edit warring because Kalki warned him: "IF you revert this again you WILL be BLOCKED." I'm not joking, this actually happened. You really can't make this stuff up. ~ DanielTom (talk) 08:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No here is the truth of DanielTom's edit-warring and the major difference between him and me:

  • Under the guise of WP:STATUSQUO, he reverter multiple editors even though it doesn't allow any edit war under any circumstances. If he wants consensus with others good, but he shouldn't edit-war with three people or revert a revert of a false allegation. At Wikiquote:Wikiquote he has edit-warred with 3 users in 2 days: [187],[188], [189] and [190]. I don't care what his motives were there or the dispute. But demanding consensus or statusquo is not an excuse for edit-warring. Of course he only blames others.
  • On Tipu Sultan he tried to have his preferred version restored by an admin after edit-warring. But BD2412 simply told him to discuss.
  • While DanielTom mentions Kalki warning me, he forgets why I removed the discussion. The issues weren't about the article India and the content was repetitve. I even mentioned this in my revert: " We don't have any dispute over this article of India. There is no censorship here." I stopped after being warned unlike others who start again after they are warned. The process at Talk:India as I expected was a dead-end.
  • If we're talking about real disruption, this repetitve posting everywhere which Kalki had to remove and DanielTom omits, can go beyond that or interaction ban can be violated, is a prime example: [191], [192], [193].
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/032&oldid=3196663"