Jump to content

Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036

Add links
From Wikiquote


List of pages with Copyright violations by this user
Diffs of Edit warring and Copyright violations at the same time on 2020 coronavirus pandemic
  1. [1] Calling good faith edits as Vandalism when I had clearly mentioned Copyright violation in my edit summary and yet this user called my edit as vandalism (a personal attack)
  2. [2] Again restored the copyright violations with an inadequate edit summary
  3. [3] Again removed the quotes I added and restored the copyright violations , This was after admin GMG removed the CopyVios
  4. [4] And the Edit warring + CopyVio continues
  5. [5] A fifth revert Edit warring + CopyVio continues.
  6. [6] The quote at 293 words also violated Wikiquote:Limits_on_quotations#Length_of_quotes, yet this user continues to edit war.
  • Harassment. diff of false accusations without any iota of evidence.

On 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India

This user has again restored his copyright violations. An admin should intervene.

Rupert loup has removed the quotes by PM Modi that I had added. Also there is a discussion ongoing about the copyright violations from the wire and this user has re-added the content without joining the discussion or explaining why this is not a copyright violation. Even his edit summary is inadequate. I request an admin to revert this edit as it is blatant copyright violations that exposes WMF to legal risks as this user seems to be clueless about how serious the Copyright violations can be. I am not reverting this edit as they are accusing me of edit warring but an admin must take action. This edit should not be allowed to stay in violation of our CopyVio rules. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by Rupert loup
  • As seen in this diff, Rupert loup is falsely accusing me of being uncivil and attacking, without providing any iota of evidence of those accusations, in the form of diffs despite asking. I consider these baseless accusations as a malicious act intended to harass me. Accordingly I request an admin to act on these. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking pages [7][8] is WQ:VANDALISM, accusing others of bad faith and making insults about their linguistic intelligence [9][10] are WQ:ATTACK, you are not behaving in a WQ:CIVIL manner. If it is difficult to you to deal with other users you should wait for an admin. Rupert Loup 07:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I had clearly mentioned Copyright violation in my edit summary and yet this user called my edit as vandalism. This is in-fact a personal attack and deserves a warning on its own for calling good faith edits as vandalism. I have already replied to all your accusations on the special retaliatory thread filed against me so I will not repeat those responses here. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to Rupert loup's blocks, both were significantly short. Neither block exceeded a full day. And he was never blocked for anything but edit-warring. Nothing more. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it shows that this person is a repeat offender who continues the same problematic behavior that led to his blocks. Let an admin decide what needs to be done. You are not an admin, why are you arguing in his support, did he ask you ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a defense witness. There is no rule against it. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Pandit

Pratap Pandit (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup and myself, and refuses to admit defeat. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, its user page acted as if it was making up rules, and had copied it from Wikiquote:Wikiquote, hence why it was marked for deletion. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: DawgDeputy had started the thread with the opening statement that also included "... constantly makes biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc.". On being challenged to provide evidence to back up his false claims, and failing to find evidence DawgDeputy has quietly removed the statement without striking off, despite being asked to strike it instead of removing [13]. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any biased edits. And always provided evidence for all my quotes. This is not a battle but if it helps you to feel better then I admit defeat. Now, please leave me alone. Let an admin take care of this. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dibbydib says otherwise. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dibbydib, is wrong. Speak for yourself. Please provide evidence where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc". I repeat, "I have not made any biased edits. And always provided evidence for all my quotes." --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of your evidence is sufficient, nor was it irrefutable. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You sir, have falsely accused me on this noticeboard of something without giving any evidence. Please provide evidence in the form of DIFF where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc". If you cannot provide any evidence for your claims, then you should Strike your unsubstantiated comments from this thread, as they are strong accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does this dispute help matters in any way, shape, or form? To quote დამოკიდებულება:
"Where there is a dispute, and there is no consensus , the status quo ante (the state before the edit war) must be restored. The edit war started with Pratab's removals. That is how a consensus-based process works." DawgDeputy (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those diffs are about content disputes being discussed on the talk page. None of those diffs answer what I had asked, or show me making biased edits without evidence. So asking again. Please provide evidence in the form of DIFF where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc".--Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, your edits in that dispute were insufficient. You claimed they were copyright violation without providing evidence. I already answered your question, so this discussion is over. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you seem to be clueless about what Copyright Violation is and what evidence was needed. Did it occur to you that there were other entries on Wikiquote:Copyright Cleanup Project as well and all of them have just a link for the CopyVio page. It is because the page itself is the evidence for CopyVio along with the link for the source (also on the same page). No further evidence is needed , but I am not sure why you are finding this hard to comprehend. No this discussion is not over yet, not until you provide evidence or strike off your false accusations from this page. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you personally attacked დამოკიდებულება, claiming he had a "weird" name. And editing it to remove that personal attack was too late. The damage was done. You should never have attacked him in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am unable to decide if you are genuinely malicious against me or linguistically handicapped to comprehend that line. That diff does not show me calling that user weird. It shows me saying "Because of his weird name, I am unable to post on his user talk page." This is fact, when I tried posting on his talk page, I was getting server errors saying "Unidentified text in Header", And the only weird text in my content was his username in all its glory. So clearly the error was due to the weird script, that user is using, in his username in God knows what language. Eventually after some attempts I was able to post on his talk page, so I removed the line as it was no longer necessary. Again asking, please provide evidence through diffs, where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc".--Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I might add, this user has been proven as a sockpuppet of BabbarJatt on enwiki (SPI archive). Also note that Pratap had very similar editing habits on enwiki, with even the same exact pages. This is a major red flag.
If you ever see the accounts BabbarJatt, Cedix, Bajrang Ram, TedCarl, Apyn, Mr.Regalis editing on here, they're all Pratap. If any administrator would want to perform a block, it should be a global one as the offenders would just move to another wiki.
Also, their contributions are only solely based on this dispute, which raise even further concerns as a SPA. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With that in mind, Pratap Pandit's egregious report against me for "harassing" it is null and void, considering it was only trying to stop me from defending Rupert loup. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't know this is wikiquote and you are supposed to discuss things about Wikiquote here. " If " I have violated any Wikiquote policy then I would like to hear. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the user refuse to remain WQ:CIVIL and keep doing WQ:ATTACK, we should wait for the intervention of an admin. We don't have an obligation to respond to threats and insults. Rupert Loup 00:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI, Matter of WP are not discussed at Wikiquote. Rupert Loup Having content dispute is neither punishable nor an offence. I have never violated WQ:CIVIL nor WQ:ATTACK. If you believe I did, then you are obligated to provide evidence of those problems in the form of diffs. Making random accusations without evidence is harassment. You should either provide the diffs or strike off your false accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You always do the same thing. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting this thread back on track. DawgDeputy, I am still waiting to see the evidence in the form of diffs, where I made "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc". or else I expect you to strike off your egregious claims and apologize for wrongful accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already provided more than enough evidence. Your contributions, your personal attacks, your history of poor behavior on Wikipedia, etc. How much more evidence do you need?
Furthermore, calling the Middle East Media Research Institute a "shitty propaganda site" (even if it really is questionable), especially with such language, is vulgar and offensive. This conversation is over until we get official word from an administrator. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No this conversation is not over. You have provided Zero evidence from Wikiquote of your false accusation of "biased edits without providing sufficient evidence, etc", and I am still waiting for you to strike off and apologize for your false accusations. What you are calling personal attack is your defective understanding of my statement, that I have already explained in detail, it is not my fault if your linguistic skills are so bad. This is Wikiquote, repeatedly talking about Wikipedia in an attempt to distract this thread is not going to help you evade from accountability of your harassment and false accusations. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note:On being challenged to provide evidence to back up his false claims, and failing to find evidence DawgDeputy has quietly removed the statement without striking off, despite being asked to strike it instead of removing [14]. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will you desist harassing us and let the administrators decide what to do with you? Dibbydib and I provided all of the evidence necessary. Again, this conversation is over and will let the administrators determine your sentence.
Furthermore, I revised the report by removing the "bias" accusation, as I found nothing sufficient about that. But the rest is more than enough. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zero evidence from Wikiquote has been provided by you two. If any admin considers any diff posted by you, as some sort of evidence, then I will be very surprised. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not an administrator, so you cannot prove that the evidence we provided is insufficient. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wikilawyering. You harrassed both DawgDeputy, Rupert loup, and დამოკიდებულება. (you being blocked on enwiki for being a sockpuppet (which you have avoided talking about), your WP contribs which are solely based on the exact same topics as your current contribs and you also removed all the quotes off this page and replaced them with your own with the other quotes having already been sourced, then you said to "stop edit warring" when you started the edit war to begin with, and then called it "vandalism and propaganda", then said it was "un-notable" and then also said it was a copyright violation (it's not), then said "let another editor decide this and revert me if he finds it appropriate", then, when two of us did, he tried to report us to administrators (you can see these above), among a lot of other things which you can see at Pratap's contribs. Here's the evidence you want, I guess :/ dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out the obvious lack of substance or evidence in this frivolous report against me (filed in retaliation for my reports above) is not wikilawyering. This is the "Sixth" time on this page, you are making claims about edits on Wikipedia knowing fully well that matter of WP are not discussed at Wikiquote. The only diffs worth looking at in your reply are the ones from Wikiquote, and they are all from content disputes being discussed on the respective talk page. After failing to find any evidence of policy violation against me, these members of the "We" group have added diffs of content dispute here, hoping to mislead others into thinking that this is some kind of offence to have a content dispute and discuss it on the talk page. In fact User:Dibbydib himself is a big part of the problem here. While the content dispute was ongoing, it was Dibbydib who first escalated this by asking to take "Content dispute" to Village pump. And in his comment above he accusing me of reporting the other editor's behavior. Dibbydib is now turning a blind eye towards all the disruption and harassment against me and is siding with the other harassers in trying to bludgeon me on the AN thread. He seems to be incapable or unwilling to look at things from a neutral perspective. Reading the threads on this page, it would be clear to anyone, that they have no evidence for violation of any policy against me. It seems this group is hoping for sanctions based on "imaginary violations" and content disputes. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look. I was going to write a whole paragraph about this, but can for God's sake can you please tone this down? We're not some organised cabal.
Your contributions which are solely based on this dispute, plus your enwiki block, have given me suspicions of which the other editors have felt the same - you haven't explained this yet and if we're going to hope to solve this we better get these out of the way instead of dodging the question. ::: I've tried to be neutral when this whole fiasco started, it's just kinda hard for me not to get a bit over it. Pls understand this, and hopefully we'll come to a conclusion quickly and avoid all this drama. Dibbysock (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Mother of Jesus, now you have repeated your accusations about Wikipedia for a " Seventh time " in a row on this page here. You have hijacked all my threads and spamming each one with drama. What is wrong with you ? Why is it so hard for you to grasp a simple point that matter about other Wikis are not discussed here. If you are not a part of this "we group" of harassers, then you should stop acting as a part of one. You have proved yourself utterly biased and appallingly hostile against me right from the time when you first posted on my talk page. If you have any doubt, you should consult a neutral user to give you some feedback on this false delusion of yours that "you have tried to be neutral" here. I have no content disputes with you and you are not a party to this thread yet, but looking at your campaign of harassment against me, you are clearly forcing me to make you one. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This content reprinted the cited article in its entirety. So yes, it's a copyright violation. Differently formatting the entirety of a copyrighted work does not entitle you to a claim of fair use. I have not, as this point, redacted the content, to provide a window in the case that a non-admin wishes to actually selectively quote the work in a way that actually is covered under fair use, presuming that the content otherwise meets our inclusion criteria. But in accordance with global policy, it needs to be redacted. If anyone wishes to do so access it, please ping me when you have completed this so I can redact the content.
  2. Users are expected to have a working English language proficiency in order to contribute to an English language project. But user's are not required to have English language names or names in a Latin script. Please remember that we are using a single unified login, which applies across projects, and users may wish to use names in their native language, especially where they may contribute to non-English projects or multi-lingual projects. This is permitted by policy even if it may cause some minor inconvenience.
  3. Please do not import disputes from other projects. Please limit discussion to any disruption you feel has happened here. Local blocks are not global locks.
  4. Please everyone make some effort to remain civil and concentrate on content rather than contributor. GMGtalk 12:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: I trimmed the content to the estential. Rupert Loup 20:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo, Rupert loup: thanks to both of you for trying to clear this thing up. The best thing to really do here is try and find a consensus on which quotes are included, which are hopefully both IMO. I might add that the article should be handled with care, it's a rather sensitive subject and all that. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Here is a proof that this user doesn't care about Copyrights] and just want to look for escuses to disrupt. This user is bassically violating all WQ:CIVIL by calling for blocks, hounding and Ill-considered accusations of impropriety against me. The user in this noticeboard is belittling contributors because of their language [15][16], calling people lier, being rude and with judgmental tone in talk pages and edit summaries. Rupert Loup 17:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
How is removing a copyright violation as a copyright violation proof they don't care about copyright? That doesn't seem to make any sense at all. GMGtalk 00:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo: Because is not a copyright violation, Pratap Pandit was doing copyfraud since the content in openDemocracy is under a Creative Commons 4.0 licence. What doens't make sense at all is that you an admin is participating in Pratap incivility by also doing that Ill-considered accusation. Rupert Loup 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you claiming that just because 1 site out of 10 sites (reported here) is on Creative Commons so all the sites become Creative Commons ?--Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

revDelete all of the vandalisim revisions on Edward De Bono. They are being used as links to more vandalisim --108.17.71.32 23:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring...

Between the following IPs:

96.238.130.65 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
108.17.71.32 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
190.72.168.122 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

And I could keep going.

Among the pages on which they have been warring:

I request action be taken against these IPs immediately. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DawgDeputy: It looks like 108.17.71.32 is trying to help, actually. The other IP's edits are clear vandalism/harassment. But .32 could be going about it better, yes. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not edit warring, it is cross-wiki IP hopping vandalism that originated on English Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Who is this LTA?. We've basically filtered out all sorts of attempts to add the vandalism directly to Wikipedia, so they're now resorting to vandalizing other WMF sites and linking to the revision on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are having a problem...

... with Remember, No Wiki (talk · contributions). You are welcome! Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IPs afoot in Journey Beyond Sodor, The Adventure Begins, and The Addams Family (film)

2600:6C4A:580:2BB8:216:44FF:FECD:133D (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
47.35.121.229 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Swaps IPs and ignores my messages and posts meaningless quotes with bias (referring to trucks as "troublesome", etc.). I request indefinite protection of all aforementioned articles and these two IPs blocked for a long period of time. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the problematic edits continue. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:დამოკიდებულება

First, Can this editor add an English name in their signature, so that it is easier to communicate in English language, instead of copy pasting every time. Communicating with fellow editors should not be made difficult by adding non English text, not supported by English Keyboards. As GMG said, this is allowed here so striking this part. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second, on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India this user has been adding massive amount of non notable content from the site Wire and propaganda sites like MEMRI, [17] that are also blatant copyright violations, on political topics related to India. He has restored the copyright violation which I have removed again, as I understand that Copyright violations should not be restored as they are serious offences with potential legal consequences, yet this user is re-adding the copyrighted content and in doing so, is accusing me of edit warring. The dispute related to the content is being discussed on the talk page of these two articles. I have challenged some of his edits and in retaliation, a report has been made on VP by this user against me. This user's behavior on other articles should also be checked in light of these findings of CopyVios.

Third, on 2020 Palghar mob lynching this user has added non notable libelous and defamatory comments by a controversial TV anchor named Arnab Goswami. (Goswami has been sued in India for his baseless and defamatory comment) No justification was given when I challenged the addition of those comment as a quote on the article. I had removed this libelous comment from the article and had mentioned in the edit summary that said "Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people. This is not the case here". But this user resorted to restoring the libel blatantly edit warring without first making consensus on why the addition of this libelous content is justified on the said article. On top of that this user called my good faith edits as vandalism (a personal attack). This user re-added the content and in doing so is accusing me of edit warring. The blatant use of non-notable quotes that are also polemics by this editor on Wikiquote need an investigation by Admins.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap Pandit: I've made a thread on the village pump. Don't cry wolf to an administrator, this is not a vandal. You both are in a content dispute and I advise you both not to edit war against each other. Adminstrators, please refer to the VP thread for additional info. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a content dispute, if was you who advised the other user on my talk page to escalate this to Village pump. I posted there, and Butwhatdoiknow asked to move to WQ:AN. Then you accuse me of crying wolf for follwing your advice? Great!. Where did I call him a vandal ? I never called him or anyone vandal, in fact this user called my good faith edits as vandalism. Butwhatdoiknow asked me to move this thread to this noticeboard from VP. Now you want to move this to VP. Why dont you (Dibbydib) and Butwhatdoiknow discuss among yourselves first before telling me where to take this ? Yes there are content disputes and those are being discussed on the article talk. This thread here is to address the behavior problems of this user and it is not related to only these 2 pages. He is doing the same on all the pages of Wikiquote. So this thread should reach its conclusion on its own merits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit: I've made a thread where I additionally talked to დამოკიდებულება. Can you explain your block on enwiki? dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue creating your threads. The behavior problems raised about User:დამოკიდებულება still needs to be addressed here and they are not just related to these 2 articles. If you think I am doing something that violates Wikiquote policies here, then please start another thread with evidence, so that I can respond there. This thread is for User:დამოკიდებულება. Do not hijack all my threads trying to belittle me. I have raised valid concerns and an admin should review them on their merits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user is using propaganda sites like MEMRI. Media Bias Fact Check says about MEMRI. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks.". If a propaganda site is all this user can find to support a random comment on the internet then that is a good indication of that random quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. On being challenged to establish why those quotes merit an inclusion into Wikiquote, this used failed to give any justification saying it is impossible and then using offensive comments like "This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it." --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what was already said by me and others about this "argument", which I will not repeat now, MEMRI is quoted across wikiquote at dozens of articles. Of course, similar NGOs are quoted across wikiquote as well --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts to edit same articles

  1. Nwalker3 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
  2. Jedi3 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) Talk Archive 1, 2 3, 4 (Blocked thrice and interaction banned in April 2018)
  3. Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) started on 17 May 2018 while ban was still in place
  4. ΞΔΞ (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
  5. დამოკიდებულება (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
  6. დამოკიდებუილება2 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

All these accounts have similar edit pattern on the same pages. See the following links of the same articles edited by all these accounts. [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they aren't the person. Jedi3 stopped editing at April 2018, Luke Jedi Skywalker in October 2018, ΞΔΞ in January 2020, and Nwalker3 in May 2017. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does that prove that they are not same users ? He creates new account to evade blocks and scrutiny. The diffs speak for themselves, I can add more diffs if needed, but I feel these are enough. Let an admin with "special capabilities" of looking at it from a neutral perspective respond. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As in a CheckUser? Dibbysock (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That user was only blocked and IB'd for 30 days. And even after the ban was lifted, Jedi3 has not been editing since. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no sockpuppet investigation concerning those users. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we don't have local CheckUsers, so if there is some substantive allegation of sockpuppetry that should be investigated, you have to go to m:Stewards. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Also all socks use the same authors and sources on similar topics:

Block evasion by Pratap_Pandit

Note: Italicized text imported from Village Pump by დამოკიდებულება. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap Pandit (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) was recently blocked on wikiquote during which time he used socks to edit wikiquote. At a time when he was blocked at wikiquote, he edited on wikiquote with socks. A number of similar edits were made on similar topics by similar IPs on wikiquote, for example here: [56][57][58][59][60][61] The edits were of the exact same type and topics (articles) as the editing of some of his other socks. There are many other examples where Pratap edited articles that were edited by me (or Rupert) previously [62]. There was similar block evasion on other wikimedia projects on articles and topics Pratap edited before with similar account names/numbers. I am sure that this is a sock used for block evasion.

Pratap was already criticized for the hounding against me and Rupert, by for example going through dozens of articles edited by me or User:Rupert loup and making spurious claims, for harassing, for hounding, for stalking, and for not being WQ:CIVIL.

Rupert loup already told Pratap many times: : This is hounding, you should stop stalking and making baseless accusations. WQ:CIVIL and WQ:WQT.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit

Note: Italicized text imported from Village Pump by დამოკიდებულება. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap has now added the checkcopyright template to dozens of articles without giving any evidence or proof explaining why they are needed. The only criteria seems to be if the article was edited by me or Rupert. The way this is done is disruptive. An admin has already reverted his edit on the Copyrights page.

The same pattern of Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit is seen in his mass nominations at Articles for deletion. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Village pump is the place to ask "[i]f you have a question about Wikiquote and how it works." Do you have such a question? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Butwhatdoiknow this is in relation to User:Pratap Pandit, who has been blocked as a sock, troll etc on en.wp; although I've got absolutely no idea whatsoever why that's an issue for WQ... ——SerialNumber54129 16:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear what the question is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first report about Pratap, and I was just dropping a note on the continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit. It was already noted by others for example that Pratap's account may need a "global lock", that all signs point to WP:NOTHERE that he is engaging in continuous harassment and edit warring and that action should be taken by admins.

I was previously told to report Pratap's harassment and edit-warring at Village Pump (see the earlier reports above), and since most reports are still on this page, I added it here. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POVs, closure, and consensus

@Pratap Pandit, დამოკიდებულება, Rupert loup, DawgDeputy: I want this discussion wrapped up without threats and hostility. For reference I've created a table with editors involved (excluding me although I was partly involved, and admins) for notes and consensus.

Username POV (subject)
Pratap Pandit (talk · contributions) Pro-Islam (disputed)
დამოკიდებულება (talk · contributions) Unknown, but edited topics include India
Rupert loup (talk · contributions) Unknown (disputed), but prominently jumpy when in disputes (1 2)
DawgDeputy (talk · contributions) None on subject, but prominently jumpy when in disputes (1)

The most useful threads on the matter are on this page at these threads (1 2 3). Administrative action has been taken on the dispute in the past, with UDScott blocking both Pratap Pandit and Rupert loup for 2 days.

My main point is that if this dispute devolves into baseless edit wars and threats again, it's not going to help anyone and is only going to escalate the matter - none of us want that and I fear we may need admin intervention.

Below listed are a collection of the comments and/or accusations collected from the dispute, to demonstrate how toxic this has become:

this user doesn't care about Copyrights] and just want to look for escuses to disrupt.
With that in mind, [editor]`s egregious report against me for "harassing" it is null and void
all these are clear signs of blatant admin high handedness and a trigger happy (block happy ?) adminship.
[editor] was doing copyfraud since the content in open
As I said, I will take actions to shut down this harassment emanating from you
[You are] involving yourself in the AN thread and spreading falsehoods against me without any evidence. What is wrong with you ?
You have hijacked all my threads and spamming each one with drama.
I have no content disputes with you and you are not a party to this thread yet, but looking at your campaign of harassment against me, you are clearly forcing me to make you one.
You are not an admin, why are you arguing in his support, did he ask you ?
these members of the "We group" have added diffs of content dispute, hoping to mislead others into thinking that this is some kind of offence to have a content dispute and discuss it on the talk page.
[editor] is now turning a blind eye towards all the disruption and harassment against me and is siding with the other harassers in trying to bludgeon me on the AN thread.
He seems to be incapable or unwilling to look at things from a neutral perspective.
If any admin considers any diff posted by you, as some sort of evidence, then I will be very surprised. (they did, lol)

No attacks on this thread please. Can we let this damn thing end already... dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a new one: Pratap said that I was "canvassing" because I requested a close in the VfDs to articles that according with him are "garbage" (which is odd because before the problem with these articles was Copyright, even public licensed content for some reason, and later was notability. W:WP:GAMING) And this after I asked said user to not do that (given the lack of WQ:CIVILITY). Rupert Loup 02:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the article in Nissim Mannathukkaren, you're right, it's not a copyright violation because the source was released under CC BY-NC, which is fine for Wikipedia. Many sources and/or media use CC BY-NC, and if we were to remove sources with them, we'd have to remove all of these images from xkcd and plenty of others. In summary, you're totally right on that part.
I haven't come to a personal consensus on the VfD matter although I have voted on the articles listed themselves. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 10:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me correct the table for you.
Username POV (subject)
Pratap Pandit (talk · contributions) Pro-Islam (disputed) Neutral Point of View (undisputed)
დამოკიდებულება (talk · contributions) Unknown, but edited topics include India unabashedly Right wing fundamentalist Hindutva POV on Wikiquote.
Rupert loup (talk · contributions) Unknown (disputed) Disruptive edit warrior blocked thrice for the same. Repeatedly reverts to restore Right wing fundamentalist Hindutva POV on Wikiquote
DawgDeputy (talk · contributions) unabashedly hostile and partisan against Pratap Pandit. See the AN thread on Harassment by User:DawgDeputy
Dibbydib (talk · contributions) unabashedly hostile and partisan against Pratap Pandit. Dibbydib cannot understand that matter on Wikipedia are not discussed on other projects.
Dibbydib (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
Dibbydib will not shut up talking about matters from Wikipedia on Wikiquote. At least 2 admins have on this page asked Dibbydib to stop bringing disputes from Wikipedia or matter related to other project but Dibbydib and his coterie will just not understand this simple fact. They think that by cherry picking lines out of context and by continuous making random accusations (personal attacks) without any evidence, they can get a user sanctioned. The primary issue here is the mass spamming of WQ articles by დამოკიდებულება (and its older socks) non notable quotes that are often copyright violations, but Dibbydib and his coterie here believes that by synchronised shouting against "Pratap Pandit" and by spamming this noticeboard with myriad threads, they will be able to derail the discussion by obfuscation. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you replaced yours with "Neutral Point of View" and დამოკიდებულება's with "unabashedly Right wing fundamentalist Hindutva POV" is pretty telling.
The main problem with what you're saying is that when got told to stop commenting on your enwiki fiasco (which I'm still 100% suspicious about) I did anyway, then you tried to make it look like (as you're doing now) that I ignored your instructions after you posted this. I understand this when you first told me to stop and haven't discussed it since. Then, when an admin confirmed that the enwiki block doesn't mainly affect discussion here, you seemed to think that this was a gateway to try and get me blocked and tried to make it look like I ignored GMG's reply (which you're doing right now) even though I agreed, complied, and even replied on the matter. If you want to take things as far as lie to me to try and get me blocked, I'm not going to be so kind to you as I was in my first reply.
Now you're even going so far as to accuse me as being in some sort of cabal or "group of harassers" (I don't even need to explain why this one's wrong)
I don't like toxicity in general but it seems you're really trying to escalate things, and that's the last thing we all want here.
I advise you to stop your toxicity towards other editors, and even admins (bad move by the way). We can see through this. The best thing to do is to settle actual content matters if you want to help. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 10:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
დამოკიდებულება has started myriad threads in an attempt to divert the discussion from his shocking bad spamming that he has been doing here for years using multiple accounts. His coterie which includes Rupert Loup and Dibbydib, are supporting him by joining in and spamming WQ:AN with random accusations without evidence. Yes, Dibbydib has been continuously harassing me for the past 3 weeks, all one needs to do is to check his contribution on WQ:AN Dibbydib (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) No one in his right mind will repeat 11 times something that he has been told not to repeat( twice by admins and multiple times by me) unless of course his intentions are to harass me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dibbydib will not shut up talking about matters from Wikipedia on Wikiquote to bully me

Dibbydib (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

At least 2 admins have on this page asked folks to stop bringing disputes from Wikipedia or matter related to other project but Dibbydib will just not understand this simple fact. They think that by cherry picking lines out of context and by continuous making random accusations (personal attacks) without any evidence, they can get a user sanctioned. As noted in my comment above, Dibbydib has been continuously attacking me without evidence.

Diffs of comments by Dibbydib repeatedly talking about Wikipedia

in a row on this page here, plus [63], this this, and this makes it a total of Eleven times, that Dibbydib has tried bringing in Wikipedia stuff on Wikiquote to attack me.

I have already raised this issue on his talk page but he seems to be determined to simply not shut up talking about Wikipedia here.  In his recent comments he repeated the same thing Eleven times in order to attack me. I have been trying to ignore the personal attacks but there is a limit  to everything and eleven times is a lot. He seems to be incapable to grasp this simple fact that matters on Wikipedia are not discussed here. Repeating something ten times to attack someone is blatant harassment, and has been allowed for too long now. I guess something else needs to be done to make this clear to him and make him stop. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Dibbydib, "You got this on yourself, and you are responsible for its continued escalation - don't deny it. I've wanted to sort stuff out but I don't think you're gonna change, and in that case, I'm hands-down not tolerant of the stuff you were doing. The best thing you can do is admit what you did wrong (as I have) and come to a conclusion." In his most recent comment here Dibbydib has resorted to outright bullying. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a timeline of events of what you've put on the table here plus some clarifications:
16-17 May
  1. 08:40, 16 May 2020 - First suspicions.
  2. 08:43, 16 May 2020 - Asked Pratap to explain (honorable mention at 09:16)
  3. 09:12, 16 May 2020 - I note the incident again
  4. 22:31, 16 May 2020 - I listed the accounts involved in the matter and requested to keep an eye out on them
  5. 08:13, 17 May 2020 - Thread which only partially mentioned the block
  6. 10:49, 17 May 2020 - Thread which also only partially mentioned the block (as in, 4 words)
  7. 12:43, 17 May 2020: GreenMeansGo said not to discuss the enwiki matter, which I complied with.
18-29 May
  1. 18:58, 18 May 2020 - UDScott blocks both Pratap and Rupert loup for edit warring.
  2. 20-29 May 2020 - I was out of this dispute entirely although it kept going on.
30 May
  1. 01:10, 30 May 2020 - I didn't even mention the block here. I was replying to another editor about what they could do if they had suspicions.
  2. 10:13, 2 June 2020 - See in upper thread, it's got nothing to do with the block itself.
I hope this clears things up and now you hopefully can't try and pretend like I've ignored GMG's comment. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 11:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copying the lines by GMG from 17 May, here in bold text.
#3. Please do not import disputes from other projects. Please limit discussion to any disruption you feel has happened here.
You never complied to this and as shown in the diffs I have listed above, You have continued invoking Wikipedia repeatedly here And that was after 17 May. Diffs after 17 May, [64] [65] [66] [67]. IF there was, ever a case of NOT GETTING IT, then it is you here. No one in his right mind will repeat 11 times something that he has been told not to repeat (twice by admins and multiple times by me) unless of course your intentions are to harass me. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First and second links are already explained in the above timeline. (Edit: First link isn't discussed in the timeline, however it was a suspicion of Pratap as a single-purpose account and has nothing to do with the enwiki matter, and it's also in 17 May) 01:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) The third didn't even mention it at all, and the fourth one is on this discussion where you're trying to make it look like I've ignored admin comments - this kind of lying is notoriously scummy, and you've done it over and over. It's not 11 times I "ignored GMG's comment", it's 11 times I said something you don't like. Dibbysock (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, you've made almost as much revisions about me than you've ever said I've done. [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74]. If I'm "hijacking each thread and spamming each one with drama", then why did you do this to an unrelated thread? I don't understand this, and if you're just trying to attack me for the sake of trying to get me blocked, it's the worst thing to do, and I see through this.
Do not go out of your way to attack other editors, then claim that they've attacked you. You have made over 500 edits almost solely on the matter, plus 137 edits to the AN - you're much more involved than I am.
If you tell me anything dumb to me like this, I'll refer here. I'm not trying to bully or attack you personally - if you think that I am, then I'm sorry for that - however, I'm just defending myself against you trying to get me blocked. I'm gonna take a break from this, and I'll dip my toes in it again when it becomes just a bit less dicey. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 03:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: For clarification, I don't have a POV on the subject and couldn't care less - I have no familiarisation with a "right wing fundamentalist Hindutva POV", whatever that means :P 03:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to rev/del or oversight this?

[75] - I'm used to this sort of thing, but still it's a good idea to show trolls they are wasting their time. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UDScott, please revdelete the other edit summary from that IP too. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expired VfDs

Can an admin plese close the VfDs Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Neethi P., Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Mekhala Krishnamurthy and Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Armin Rosencranz? Rupert Loup 18:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Y Done and I cleaned up a few more. There is at least one old one that remains disposition, but it is one that I opened. Perhaps one of the other admins could take care of it (as well as archiving, once they have reviewed what I did). ~ UDScott (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suppress please

Please suppress edit summary. And all of this. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: stewards have done so. Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this - but we need to remind stewards that they should also likely hide the username in cases like this. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel/deletion requests

Can someone revdel all the defamatory IP edits from May 21-22 on Edward de Bono and Alexander Pope, including the defamatory edit summaries? And can someone also delete User talk:190.72.168.122 which suggests something bad about the same person?

Y Done Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were proxy IPs involved in the same edit wars that are still there and one more by the main 96.238.130.65 in a row from another as well as two edit summaries by the IP 108.17.71.32 which was otherwise reverting the bad edits.
I can't understand you. Please make a list of the diffs that are outstanding to remove or to a user's contributions. I think I have them all now. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These ones:

And these edit summaries:

Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IP (likely a sockpuppet...)

2601:240:4180:6A50:6940:A401:458B:539C (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Adds nonsense categories to certain series (most of which have no solid evidence of official cancellation). Apparently a sockpuppet of blocked problematic IP 98.214.101.235 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log). Same MO, same editing patterns, etc. I request immediate action be taken against it. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Again? Y Done. Thanks, DD. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now yet another sockpuppet is afoot:
2601:240:4180:6A50:4939:AA83:4CA2:E97D‎ (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) Not only must this sockpuppet be blocked, but all pages it vandalized be protected against these vandals indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xsaorapa's abusive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry

Xsaorapa (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) was using a sock SPA to give meatpuppet instructions to Pratap Pandit. This was at least the second time this user used an abusive sockpuppetry on wikiquote. The abusive sockpuppetry was confirmed by a steward.

It always seemed strange that a new user like Pratap would be templating dozens of articles with little used templates and nominating articles for deletion. Now we know that Pratap was acting as a meatpuppet for Xsaorapa under his instructions, over email and/or little used talkpages. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Pratap Pandit was not acting under my instructions and we never had any email exchange. The only thing I did I was to inform him that you were using multiple accounts, that's all.
Secondly, for years now, Jedi3 (user:დამოკიდებულება) has been adding a massive amount of quotes (mainly from Hindu nationalists) to push a political agenda on every Islam/Hinduism/India-related page and even unrelated. There was a case where an user was blocked indefinitely from Wikiquote for "Pro-Russian/anti-American POV". I don't see much difference in what this user has been doing all this time, despite the fact that this issue was raised before. --Xsaorapa (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you were giving instructions to Pratap, and he copied them word for word, so he was acting under your instructions. What other purpose was there for an abusive sock SPA? You were giving many misleading claims and false claims to Pratap. It is not the first time you used abusive sockpuppetry, as you admitted here [76]. Also, stop your personal attacks, I have added a wide variety of quotes, both pro and contra on many topics, also many pro-Islam quotes. And the same quote could be positive for somebody and negative for somebody else. Also, the issue of you being a pro-Islam (or pro-Islamism) pov pusher and doing edit warring and/or censorship on wikiquote was raised for example here [77] [78] [79] [80]. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion with a user twice confirmed for abusive sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, and a history of harassment, intimidation and edit-warring. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kalki, BD2412, UDScott and Jusjih: these recent discussions have similarities with the discussions that took place in Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/032 between Jedi3 and MonsterHunter32. Rupert Loup 22:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A few notes:
  1. There are no local Checkusers on Wikiquote; you will have to request intervention from a global checkuser or a steward if you have a real sockpuppetry issue.
  2. Nobody is in the right here. It's best to sort things out and understand perspectives rather than jumping to conclusions, however I will confirm that Pratap has a pro-Islam POV which I've noticed, but this shouldn't be cause for an outright block. Any POV pushing should be stopped immediately - but you shouldn't come down on them like a pile of bricks. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 01:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they already reported it there. And this link which was provided here by დამოკიდებულება proves that this is just a continuation of that old conflict. I hope that a resolution can be finallly achived now. Here are some archives in the pages of the admins during the Jedi3 vs MonsterHunter32 conflict:
Rupert Loup 18:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry that I've been aloof recently and have not been able to catch up on the significant amount of required reading to help to mediate this conflict. I continue to think that we need to reinstate local CUs on this project. Unfortunately, according to meta policy, that requires at least two CU candidates that can get 25 supports from the community, and it's rare that an RfA or RfB on WQ gets more than ten votes in total. My own RfB got all of five !votes over five or six months. I continue to believe that the meta policy in this regard hamstrings small projects from being able to be self governing. GMGtalk 15:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Y Done This should have happened awhile ago. We have clearly seen that User:Xsaorapa and User:Sunfee are the same person per the CU investigation above, so they are both blocked indefinitely with Xsaorapa allowed talk page access to explain himself, etc. No action on User:Feitoria. Thank you to User:დამოკიდებულება for bringing this to Meta. Again, to be frank, this is all interminable intrigue over something so simple and small as the English Wikiquote and it's mind-boggling that we're going thru all of this drama. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

173.77.215.131

173.77.215.131 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

It belittled me even though it clearly violated protocol repeatedly. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ningauble: @GreenMeansGo: @UDScott: @Kalki: @Koavf:

And now it is at it again. Please take serious action against it, and strike its edit summaries. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done by me awhile ago but I didn't close the loop here. Thanks, DawgDeputy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:დამოკიდებულება

First, Can this editor add an English name in their signature, so that it is easier to communicate in English language, instead of copy pasting every time. Communicating with fellow editors should not be made difficult by adding non English text, not supported by English Keyboards. As GMG said, this is allowed here so striking this part. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second, on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India this user has been adding massive amount of non notable content from the site Wire and propaganda sites like MEMRI, [86] that are also blatant copyright violations, on political topics related to India. He has restored the copyright violation which I have removed again, as I understand that Copyright violations should not be restored as they are serious offences with potential legal consequences, yet this user is re-adding the copyrighted content and in doing so, is accusing me of edit warring. The dispute related to the content is being discussed on the talk page of these two articles. I have challenged some of his edits and in retaliation, a report has been made on VP by this user against me. This user's behavior on other articles should also be checked in light of these findings of CopyVios.

Third, on 2020 Palghar mob lynching this user has added non notable libelous and defamatory comments by a controversial TV anchor named Arnab Goswami. (Goswami has been sued in India for his baseless and defamatory comment) No justification was given when I challenged the addition of those comment as a quote on the article. I had removed this libelous comment from the article and had mentioned in the edit summary that said "Notable: We limit ourselves to quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable because it has achieved fame due to its enduring relevance to many people. This is not the case here". But this user resorted to restoring the libel blatantly edit warring without first making consensus on why the addition of this libelous content is justified on the said article. On top of that this user called my good faith edits as vandalism (a personal attack). This user re-added the content and in doing so is accusing me of edit warring. The blatant use of non-notable quotes that are also polemics by this editor on Wikiquote need an investigation by Admins.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap Pandit: I've made a thread on the village pump. Don't cry wolf to an administrator, this is not a vandal. You both are in a content dispute and I advise you both not to edit war against each other. Adminstrators, please refer to the VP thread for additional info. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 22:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was a content dispute, if was you who advised the other user on my talk page to escalate this to Village pump. I posted there, and Butwhatdoiknow asked to move to WQ:AN. Then you accuse me of crying wolf for follwing your advice? Great!. Where did I call him a vandal ? I never called him or anyone vandal, in fact this user called my good faith edits as vandalism. Butwhatdoiknow asked me to move this thread to this noticeboard from VP. Now you want to move this to VP. Why dont you (Dibbydib) and Butwhatdoiknow discuss among yourselves first before telling me where to take this ? Yes there are content disputes and those are being discussed on the article talk. This thread here is to address the behavior problems of this user and it is not related to only these 2 pages. He is doing the same on all the pages of Wikiquote. So this thread should reach its conclusion on its own merits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit: I've made a thread where I additionally talked to დამოკიდებულება. Can you explain your block on enwiki? dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue creating your threads. The behavior problems raised about User:დამოკიდებულება still needs to be addressed here and they are not just related to these 2 articles. If you think I am doing something that violates Wikiquote policies here, then please start another thread with evidence, so that I can respond there. This thread is for User:დამოკიდებულება. Do not hijack all my threads trying to belittle me. I have raised valid concerns and an admin should review them on their merits. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user is using propaganda sites like MEMRI. Media Bias Fact Check says about MEMRI. "we rate MEMRI a Questionable source based on promotion of Israeli propaganda, poor sourcing and a few failed fact checks.". If a propaganda site is all this user can find to support a random comment on the internet then that is a good indication of that random quote not meeting the criteria to be included on Wikiquote. On being challenged to establish why those quotes merit an inclusion into Wikiquote, this used failed to give any justification saying it is impossible and then using offensive comments like "This is so elementary that every school kid could grasp it." --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what was already said by me and others about this "argument", which I will not repeat now, MEMRI is quoted across wikiquote at dozens of articles. Of course, similar NGOs are quoted across wikiquote as well --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts to edit same articles

  1. Nwalker3 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
  2. Jedi3 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) Talk Archive 1, 2 3, 4 (Blocked thrice and interaction banned in April 2018)
  3. Luke Jedi Skywalker (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) started on 17 May 2018 while ban was still in place
  4. ΞΔΞ (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
  5. დამოკიდებულება (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
  6. დამოკიდებუილება2 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

All these accounts have similar edit pattern on the same pages. See the following links of the same articles edited by all these accounts. [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] --Pratap Pandit (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they aren't the person. Jedi3 stopped editing at April 2018, Luke Jedi Skywalker in October 2018, ΞΔΞ in January 2020, and Nwalker3 in May 2017. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does that prove that they are not same users ? He creates new account to evade blocks and scrutiny. The diffs speak for themselves, I can add more diffs if needed, but I feel these are enough. Let an admin with "special capabilities" of looking at it from a neutral perspective respond. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As in a CheckUser? Dibbysock (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That user was only blocked and IB'd for 30 days. And even after the ban was lifted, Jedi3 has not been editing since. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no sockpuppet investigation concerning those users. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we don't have local CheckUsers, so if there is some substantive allegation of sockpuppetry that should be investigated, you have to go to m:Stewards. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Also all socks use the same authors and sources on similar topics:

All indefinitely blocked. The account User:დამოკიდებულება has talk page access to explain himself. Very compelling evidence of widespread sockpuppetry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators,

the OTRS received a complaint about copyright of several Wikiquote pages. With the express permission of the sender, I publish their letter in verbatim. I would like to ask Wikiquote administrators to review those cases. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Dear Wikiquote,

We wanted to notificate you that copyright infringement has been located on your online compendium.

Here are the following links (with the list of the works in question) where copyright violations have been located:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ishwar_Sharan
The Myth of Saint Thomas and the Mylapore Shiva Temple. Third edition. 2010. Fourth Edition, 2019. Ishwar Sharan.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ram_Swarup
Hindu View of Christianity and Islam (1992) Voice of India. Ram Swarup
On Hinduism: Reviews and Reflections (2000) Voice of India. Ram Swarup

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arun_Shourie
The World of Fatwas (Or The Shariah In Action), (1995) New Delhi : ASA Publications, Arun Shourie
Eminent Historians: Their Technology, Their Line, Their Fraud (1998) ASA; 1 edition, Arun Shourie
Hindu temples: What happened to them (Volume I), (1993). Arun Shourie

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/K._S._Lal
Indian Muslims: Who Are They (1990). Voice of India.  K. S. Lal
The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India (1992). New Delhi : Aditya Prakashan. K. S. Lal 
Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India (1999). New Delhi : Aditya Prakashan. K. S. Lal

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Koenraad_Elst
Negationism in India: concealing the record of Islam (1992), Voice of India  K. Elst
Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, (1999). Aditya Prakashan; 1 edition. K. Elst
The Argumentative Hindu: Essays by a Non-Affiliated Orientalist (2012). Aditya Prakashan. K. Elst
Ayodhya: The Case Against the Temple (2002). Voice of India. K. Elst

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sita_Ram_Goel
Hindu Society under Siege (1981, revised 1992) S. R. Goel
Defence of Hindu Society (1983) Voice of India; 3rd enl. ed edition. S. R. Goel
Muslim Separatism – Causes and Consequences (1987) S. R. Goel
The Calcutta Quran Petition (1986) New Delhi : Voice of India S. R. Goel
Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them, Volume II (1993) S. R. Goel
The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India (1994) New Delhi : Voice of India. S. R. Goel
History of Hindu-Christian Encounters (1996) Voice of India. S. R. Goel

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Shah_Waliullah_Dehlawi
Muslim separatism: Causes and consequences (1995). Voice of India, Second Edition. S. R. Goel
The History of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS. (2018) Bombardier Books. Robert B. Spencer
Shãh Walîullah Dehlvî ke Siyãsî Maktûbãt (1969), Second Edition, Delhi. K. A. Nizami

Inserted by --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that this sender is none other than Xsaorapa (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) , the same user who

  1. was using a sock SPA to give meatpuppet instructions to Pratap Pandit.
  2. and who pulled the same sock trick already previously, using abusive sockpuppetry on wikiquote
  3. has a history of personal attacks, harassment, hounding, stalking, intimidation and edit-warring, and of spreading false and misleading claims and outright lies
  4. has a history of censorship on wikiquote : [125] [126] [127] [128]
    1. "Xsaorapa is engaging in censorship of quotes critical of Islam"
    2. "(Xsaorapa is) removing quotes in a camouflaged way, and removing them again by giving false reasons even after they are restored by another editor, amounts to vandalism"
    3. " He is removing quotes based not on whether they are too long but on whether they are critical of Islam. That's clear for everyone to see. And it is unacceptable. "

And now he is trolling OTRS. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Pratap Pandit was making the same claims (it has been confirmed that Pratap has been acting as a meatpuppet of Xsaorapa, using a sock). And I already told Pratap many times that he needs to produce proof and evidence for his claims. Mass-templating articles without any credible proof or evidence is just part of the larger harassment, hounding and stalking of the user.

A few more points: I read somewhere on wikiquote that about 1.5 percent of a work is fair use. I have not seen any credible proof or evidence that more is quoted in any of these cases (some of these books are works with over 700 pages). In the last item (Shah_Waliullah_Dehlawi) books by other authors are listed, who are themselves quoting Shah Waliullah Dehlawi. If they can quote Shah_Waliullah_Dehlawi, so should we. And for the record, some of these authors have expressed opinions of anti-copyright sentiment and have allowed the publication of their works on Archive.org and other websites. The first book in the list is available "to the public under the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)." This is the same case as in the article Nissim Mannathukkaren, which was tagged by Pratap as a copyright violation even though it is not a copyright violation because the source was released under CC BY-NC. And about four of these authors are dead : Shah Waliullah Dehlawi died in 1762. This is another of the user's frivolous, false and misleading claims. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

დამოკიდებულება (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) (and his older socks) has been adding a massive amount of material from copyrighted works in a way that is clearly a copyright violation. [129], [130], [131], [132], [133]

  • This user also keeps creating a new sock every few months to hide his disruption and deceive other contributors.[134]
  • He has already been blocked in the past (with his old sock Jedi3) for edit-warring, intimidation and harassment.
  • He was denounced several times by other users for promoting a right-wing/anti-muslim/anti-christian political agenda on Wikiquote:
  1. BD2412, User:Jedi3's sole purpose in his edits has been POV-pushing to spread hatred against non-Hindu religions even if his quotes are not memorable. This is why nearly all of his quotes are crtical against Muslims, Christians, and their religions. Please be careful of his intentions and edits. [135]
  2. "What I do know is that sister links from en-WP Indic articles to content here that contains a lot of stuff by Elst may well be rejected. He has his place, sure, just as quotes by Hitler or Lenin etc have their place, but the sheer number of examples I've seen here added by ΞΔΞ in particular seem, wittingly or unwittingly, to be essentially a propaganda exercise. [136] ... I'd be surprised if the WMF would appreciate the concept of neutrality/not censored being extended to the point of actively promoting an Islamophobic POV or similar, which is what seems to be happening, whether by design or accident. " [137]
  3. "This user has been adding lots of statements as quotes to his political opponent's pages ... he is using wiki quotes as a tool to spread the message of RSS, an Indian right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer organisation. The user is also using this site to promote his hatred against other religions as well." [138]
  4. "On 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India this user has been adding massive amount of non notable content from propaganda sites like MEMRI, that are also copyright violations, on political topics related to India. ... The blatant use of non notable polemics by this editor on Wikiquote need an investigation by Admins." [139]

--Xsaorapa (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When every line is an outright lie, misleading or false claim, or a personal attack, I'm not wasting my time continuing this discussion, especially when Xsaorapa has just hours ago trolled OTRS with a fake claim, has just days ago used abusive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry across wikiquote, and has a history of personal attacks, harassment, hounding, stalking, intimidation and edit-warring, and of spreading false and misleading claims and outright lies. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that Pratap and Xsaorapa are connected however I'll look through both of their behaviour on Wikiquote later. You might need to request a SPI at meta if you're looking for that. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 01:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dibbydib, I didn't check this page and missed your comment. Please see my comment here. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to see the underlying OTRS ticket and was curious about this. I recognize there is some sort of conflict between two users here, but do any administrators want to actually weigh in on the underlying claims? User:koavf? It seems odd to me to be quoting an author's note, for instance. Emufarmers (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Emufarmers: If you're willing to share your email address with me, then please send me a message. Not sure how revelatory it will be but I'm happy to discuss. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author's note is a kind of introduction chapter in this book. I partly agree and am going to trim the quote from it, and partly disagree since one of the two quotes is interesting. This book is available "to the public under the Creative Commons License Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)." This is the same case as in the article Nissim Mannathukkaren, which was tagged by Pratap as a copyright violation even though it is not a copyright violation because the source was released under CC BY-NC.

The underlying issue here is that Xsaorapa fake OTRS claim was not done in good faith, but is part of a history of personal attacks, harassment, hounding, stalking and intimidation and of spreading false and misleading claims and outright lies.

Here is a timeline of the past few days:

  1. On 16 May, Xsaorapa started giving meatpuppet instructions to User Pratap Pandit by using his sockpuppet User Sunfee over email and/or little used talkpages
  2. On 18 May, Pratap started mass templating articles edited by me or other users, which other users have called harassment. The first case was at Talk:Rajendran Narayanan.
  3. On 27 May, the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry got exposed
  4. On 5 June, the meatpuppet master (Xsaorapa) took over from Pratap and started exactly the same mass templating that his meatpuppet Pratap did just some days before
  5. On 7 June, Xsaorapa trolls OTRS with a fake OTRS claim

This is just plain harassment and intimidation.

I have commented to the issue earlier also. Nevertheless, if there is a good faith concern about this issue by you or someone else, I will look again into it. --დამოკიდებუილება2 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done I have removed one of the two quotes that were flagged for review. The second quote I left because it is an interesting quote. --დამოკიდებუილება2 (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: @Koavf: @Emufarmers:

See how Voice of India (VOI) (a Hindutva front) publications [140], [141] have been disseminated on Wikiquote by this user for propagandistic purposes:

  • 67 results with quoted material from the book Muslim slave system in medieval India [142]
  • 71 results with quoted material from the book Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate [143]
  • 72 results with quoted material from the book The Story of Islamic Imperialism in India [144]
  • 85 results with quoted material from the book Hindu temples: What happened to them [145]
  • 103 results with quoted material from the book The Legacy of Muslim Rule in India [146]
  • 123 results with quoted material from the book Decolonizing the Hindu mind [147], this one was not published by VOI but still from one of their major author (Koenraad Elst)

The majority of the pages showed in these results have been created and/or mainly edited by the same group of socks (Jedi3, Luke Jedi Skywalker, ΞΔΞ, დამოკიდებულება) [148]. Notice that most of the quotations added in these pages are taken from authors that were published by and/or associated with VOI (Sita Ram Goel, Ram Swarup, K. Elst, Kishori Saran Lal, Arun Shourie...) It's obvious that the sole purpose of these pages is to serve as a relay for VOI propaganda.

Here are a few examples:

--Xsaorapa (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This obsessive and blatant McCarthyism seems obviouly motivated by desire of censorship of quotes critical of Islamism or sympathetic to Hinduism as observed previously [158] [159] [160] [161] None of your wall of text has any concrete issue about any concrete specific quote. And again every line is a lie, misleading or false claim, or a personal attack, and this comes after he has trolled OTRS with a fake claim, has just days ago used abusive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry across wikiquote, and has a history of personal attacks, harassment, hounding, stalking, intimidation and edit-warring, and of spreading false and misleading claims and outright lies. To point out the obvious, the list includes eminent historians like KS Lal and notable scholars like Shourie or Elst, who are known for their witty writing style (which translates into quotable). Also the vast majority of these are indirect citations from books of the authors (for example, Elliot and Dowson's History quoted from KS Lal) and not even direct quotes of the authors, and not all of the quotes of these authors were added by me. They are also not Hindutva, none of these authors are members of any Hindutva organization (with the exception of Shourie who once was a member of BJP (the largest political party of India) but is nowadays a vocal critic of BJP and the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi). They are only falsely characterized as such by people with a political axe to grind. Saying that another user added quotes for propaganda is a personal attack. I add quote as I come across them. But as a matter of fact I have added quotes from a vast diversity of authors, with a vast diversity of views and pov's and many of them without any particular political pov. And as another user once told you, I've actually accepted long ago that the price I pay for standing in the way of vandals and trolls is being occasionally (by these, persistently) defamed in public and portrayed in the worst possible light; it "comes with the territory". Normally I wouldn't even reply when each line is a personal attack, outright lie or misleading claim as is the case here. --დამოკიდებუილება2 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@დამოკიდებულება: The pattern of editing noted above is strongly suspicious and I've blocked all of those accounts and made a post on Meta. Since it is possible that there is something that I'm missing (and we don't have local checkusers), I have left talk page access to you. Note that while your დამოკიდებუილება2 account is marked as a legitimate secondary account, I've only left the დამოკიდებუილება account with talk page access, so you may need to get to a desktop to post on your talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, GreenMeansGo, Kalki, UDScott: Please review this action above and feel free to revert me if I seem off-track. Frankly, I'm tired of all of this nonsense here for something as simple as a quotation repository and all of this very arcane and long-winded fighting about niche topics in Indian history is draining. I can't do this myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would just confirm that the quotations complained of do not appear to amount to a copyright violation (although there are some uncomfortably lengthy quotes on some of these pages). The OTRS tickets therefore do indeed seem to be frivolous. BD2412 T 02:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Xsaorapa, notwithstanding the block above, I do appreciate the fact that you are showing off some very bizarre, biased, and inappropriate edits. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also say that there are some uncomfortably lengthy quotes. Much of this problem seems to be the excessive use of ellipses in order to "construct a quote", and these should probably be trimmed into actual quotes. Template:Rq What came of the CU request? GMGtalk 13:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analog computer virvs

Analog computer virvs (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Falsely accuses a random IP address of being a "spectrum" editor without any evidence. That is attacking/belittling. Clearly a sockpuppet. I request this user be blocked infinitely, and any edits it made be struck, including the false warning it left on my talk page. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done by someone else. @DawgDeputy: what is the proof of being a sock? If it's a sock account, I'll block indefinitely or raise to a steward for a global lock. Otherwise, he's just a bigot who wrote some garbage but could participate someday. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are the following accounts it used before:
67.百七十.192.231 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
WikiLumber (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
2603:3024:1DDE:0:94D8:344:5456:13EF (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
And there are a bunch more, but these are all we need. Same MO, same level of bigotry, etc. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the user involved is known as Arturo Gustavo, the benevolent LTA (new nickname given thanks to TBaloney). His LTA activities always harmless, LOL! --𝕸atters𝕊c𝖑ent𝖑st (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the accounts are Arturo (so is User:𝕸atters𝕊c𝖑ent𝖑st for what it’s worth) Also DawgDeputy when he’s reporting the Thomas and friends vandal he is in fact correct, and you are wrong to revert him over it since the IP probably should be blocked. You’re also just egging him on. He’s mostly harmless unless he considers you a “Goody2shoes”... TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Falsely accusing the vandals of being "on spectrum" and/or having some sort of mental disorder and whatnot, especially without any sufficient evidence, is not what we consider harmless or benevolent. We consider that offensive. Far more than the IP vandals. It started the issue when it made that false accusation. I was trying to stop it from spreading its anti-spectrum agenda. I was not egging it on. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we can’t really have any proof of that without medical records which are obviously not going to be allowed on any Wikimedia project, but regardless, your reaction to this LTA is far more disruptive than the LTA is himself and you’re making it so he will focus on you here. Like I said, the only people he’s actually rude to are people who in their attempt to rid Wikimedia projects of abuse spend unnecessary time fighting against things no one cares about, such your reactions here. Yes, we block Arturo and globally lock him. Part of the reason we block him is because he will get into fights with people who take this too seriously and they find it distressing. You fall in that camp, apparently, and by egging him on (and yes, that is what you’re doing whether you mean to or not) he is just going to focus more on you.

Tl;dr: you should probably ignore Arturo going forward. We always catch him via CU (not hard to spot/doesn’t try to hide) and he’s usually globally locked quickly. Don’t give him more ammunition to do the most disruptive thing he does. It just makes the situation worse. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arturo Gustavo, or whatever other username it uses, started it all with those false accusations and being nothing more than a bully (which is worse than vandalism). It forced us to egg it on. It opened the door. We were locking it. It makes no sense to defend LTAs. The behavior of the LTA in question is clearly unacceptable. And it should know that a mental disorder of any sort is no excuse for vandalism. Vandalism is vandalism.
And I do not see you giving that same "advice" to administrators who had fought valiantly to fend off bigger vandals/bullies. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, your making a big deal of easily the least harmful LTA on any wikimedia project. We block him, CU him, lock him, and move on. Calling him a bully for reporting vandalism means that he’s just going to start teasing you cross-wiki, causing you to start unneeded threads like this, wasting everyone’s time. People like Bsadowski1, Tks4Fish and myself deal with him quickly every day. Seriously, just report him to m:SRG with “Arturo Gustavo sock” and nothing more. It’ll get the problem solved without giving him more energy. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is no "least harmful" LTA. All LTAs are equally a threat.
2. It is a bully. Why else would it make false accusations and claim a "mental disorder" as an excuse for vandalism?
3. You are missing the second half of my previous point.
4. That LTA only pays attention to IP vandals that it refers to as "childish", "spectrum", etc. It never goes after me. But it should have learned just to report them as vandalism and nothing more. It opened the door, and we were trying to lock it and destroy the keys.
5. Blocking an LTA, CU'ing it, locking it, and moving on does not help. The admins tried to do the same to a longer-term vandal who keeps vandalizing their talk pages, the "Vandalism in Progress" board, and even this page, and they kept quiet every time, but that same LTA kept coming back for more. All in all, Arturo Gustavo (or whatever its name is)'s is no different than the LTA the admins keep fighting. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dibbydib (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Dibbydib has been violating copyright licensing requirements of attributions while copying content into Wikiquote. Example is this page that Dibbydib created was copied from here without providing any credits as mandated by CC Terms, while copying. I raised it 2 weeks back and in response, he claims in his reply that this copying without attribution is allowed, thereby explaining he neither understands these requirements nor has intentions to comply with these requirements. These are not optional.

Since then, he has created another bunch of templates copying from wikipedia. eg. here [162] [163] and continues to copy without attribution. This is a failure of basic copyright policy requirement from an editor and repeated violation needs admin attention. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N Not Done This seems likely to be some personal feud spilling over into an ostensible policy problem but forgive me if you are just being genuinely concerned about CC restrictions. I'm not 100% convinced that "[picture of a duck] looks like a duck to me" is sufficiently original as to be copyright-able but I'm not a lawyer. Dibbydib is correct that these fairly small and trivial templates are widely copied and usually without any serious consequence (is someone from en.wp going to sue someone from en.wq for copying "This article on Christianity is a stub. You can help Wikiquote by expanding it."?) Dibbydib, it is wiser for CC attribution and technical reasons to have someone actually use Special:Import. Do you have examples of templates you'd like imported? If so, I can do that and we can avoid this whole minefield. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Justin It is time for you to read the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content again. One can expect such a comment from Dibbydib but not from you. You are an admin FFS. You set the standards. No wonder this project is in shambles. Please read the page first and then we can talk. All he needs to do is to include a link to the source page stating Copied from XYZ. The main concern here is that, this attribution is not optional but "mandatory" according to the licensing terms and repeated violations must not be allowed if the user is unwilling to comply. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit: That link is purple in my browser. I won't tolerate you writing about anyone else on the site with rude slander and I will 100% block you if I see it again. For now, removing it from your comment is enough. Do not write things like that ever again here. If you had read and comprehended the page you linked, reusing material is only germane if that content is in fact, copyrightable. There is a minimum threshold of originality in the United States for something to even have a copyright in the first place and as someone who isn't an IP lawyer, it's not obvious to me that these very simple phrases are eligible for copyright (in fact, they are not). I tried to be more diplomatic in my last post by acknowledging that the way that Dibbydib went about this is not optimal (importing is best, providing a link in the edit summary is next best, straight up copying and pasting without attribution is worst) but I am going to be less diplomatic if you come here with your rude and ignorant arrogance again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too deeply in the middle of this, but to repeat my comment at the Village Pump, it would definitely be better if Dibbydib were to provide attribution for copied material, even if the copyrightability is questionable. BD2412 T 03:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will admit that although it is not required, I should have probably put attribution to its source. I've done it now in the template's documentation.
I've gotta admit, though, it's pretty scummy to search through someone's contributions to find this, which is what I suspect Pratap did. To be fair, Pratap has been noticably following my contributions around for the past two months now and I've gotten a lot more cautious when editing. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: These three ([164] [165] [166]) templates are also not copied from Wikipedia, they are part of an effort in stub sorting, and I've made them from the ground up. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dibbydib, thanks for agreeing. Please note that the common and generally accepted way of attributing copied stuff is to explicitly state in the edit summary "Copied from URL" and then include a link to the source. This should be done even if there are no documentation subpage. So a lack of documentation subpage should not be cited as an excuse to avoid attribution. As for the retaliatory accusations on me. Let me remind that few weeks back on Village Pump you had asked for RfA Advice and I had provided the requested feedback based on your recent contribution. I hope you will agree that one needs to check contributions before giving a feedback on your contributions. The concern was clearly brought to your notice and you continued to ignore it, and failed to attribute the copying. That is the sole reason for opening this thread. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pratap Pandit: You said this to me as advice:
"This is a classic case of Unable to get a point."
"If such people become admin then the chaos that will ensue is unimaginable."
"WQ users should watchout and be careful."
This was not advice. It was legitimately an attack and it's never okay to do this to a completely unrelated thread. I suggest you don't use this kind of approach on anyone. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, you've been going after me (and plenty of other editors) for a total of two months.
Can these messages be, at the very least, archived? dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 07:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this AN thread is your repeated violation of attribution requirements as mandated by Creative commons. It will be in everyone's interest if you keep the discussion "focused" on the topic. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A short phrase like "it looks like a duck" is probably not complex enough to qualify for copyright protection. Similarly, something like a stub template is very likely too rote and formulaic to qualify for copyright protection. Having said that, if folks just link the page in Wikidata as they should be anyway, this may arguably satisfy the attribution requirement.
I don't know that anyone can accuse me personally of not taking copyright seriously. But we should avoid giving the impression that we are trying to weaponize copyright to win an otherwise unrelated dispute. GMGtalk 12:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IPs

IPs with the same MO have been making the same unnecessary edits to The Jungle Book (1967 film), Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, Box-Office Bunny, SpongeBob SquarePants/Season 1, etc. I request all of these articles receive long-term protection against these IPs and action be taken against them, lest they spread to other articles. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oohtqejjhh

Oohtqejjhh (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

It posts horrid images of one who shall remain nameless without explanation. I request this vandal be blocked infinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also request that all of its edits be permanently hidden so that they will never come back. DawgDeputy (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that all of the files it uploaded be deleted, as well. DawgDeputy (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TVEBOR block evasion

[167] → [168] same behavior in editing and in the summaries. Rupert Loup 05:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism report on User:DawgDeputy

See Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#New_report_on_DawgDeputy Ylevental (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ylevental

Ylevental (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Falsely accuses me and TLPG (among other users) of sockpuppetry without hard, relevant, irrefutable evidence other than its easily-refutable say-so. I request it be blocked indefinitely. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo:
@Koavf:
@UDScott:
@Kalki:
Ylevental is trying desperately to get me blocked for something I did not do. I request immediate action be taken against it before it goes after another innocent user. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reported you at Wikiquote:Vandalism in progress. You can defend yourself over there. Ylevental (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now it is trying to take the frivolous case to Vandalism in Progress. I request action be taken against it immediately. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo:
@Koavf:
@UDScott:
@Kalki:
And it continues to harass me with lies! Block this user immediately before things go too far. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muntader saleh

I tagged Muntader saleh for deletion as spam, but the speedy deletion tag was removed by the page creator twice (happens to have the same username as the page title...) can an admin please take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've been reverted, too. Known from c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Theczr. --Achim55 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

User:Spinebeck. Thanks. --Minorax (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user

And that is New editings.

New editings (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Recently filed a report without proper judgment (since the recently-reported IPs in question did not necessarily vandalize, but rather only added too many quotes that exceeded Wikiquote's limitations and have not been persistent), and judging from the poor grammar in this report, I find its claims superfluous. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bad IP editor with many *problems* 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64

Please block problematic Thomas and Friends editor that now switch to vandalize SpongeBob. 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64

He/it already got blocked six months on EN wiki, yay! Here.

--New editings (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC) <Arturo>[reply]

childish vandal 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64 now engaged in copyright viols. Please block it now. --Anti-Spectrum (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalki:
@GreenMeansGo:
@Koavf:
Delete this report and strike the reporting party's comments. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please block and rev-delete

MmmMcGriddles. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • And while you're at it, give me rollback on this Wiki please so I can roll this loser's edits back as soon as he pings me. I don't understand why you all cannot install the kinds of filters that we have on en-wiki. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: unfortunately, there is no local rollback group here. What filters (filter numbers) do you have on enwiki? I'm an edit filter helper there, so I can see the private filters and import them here --DannyS712 (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately no, that's a bit over my head too. I'll send a note to the functionaries list, someone there should know what filters apply. In the meantime, Drmies, do you use IRC? There's pretty much always a steward watching #wikimedia-stewards, if you ping them they can lock an account pretty damn fast. Also I don't know if global rollback is a thing but you might want to ask about it. Ivanvector (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can tell you that on enwiki, MmmMcGriddles tripped filters 3, 12, 61, 135, 249, 316, 323, 384, 789, and 803 all on 12 June 2017, and filter 51 on 28 June 2018. In case that helps. Ivanvector (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64 --CompromizedAcct (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CompromizedAcct: I can't understand that. Please reword. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this report/false accusation null and void. Please strike this report as if it never existed. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
N Not Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A block for DawgDeputy?

DawgDeputy (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

I checked his block log and there is nothing there. This is despite the fact that he attempted to repeatedly remove an issue I posted about him instead of simply replying, and in fact, a second user in May also complained about his repeated attacks at Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/035#Harassment_and_Edit_warring_by_User:DawgDeputy. However, nothing was done. I just learned about this incident today. I believe that at least temporary block is in order. Even looking through his history, he has been vandalizing for many years. Ylevental (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more evidence where an administrator accuses DawgDeputy of harassment: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=User%3APratap_Pandit&type=revision&diff=2795798&oldid=2795759

Finally, he attempted to repeatedly add inappropriate content to an article a couple years ago, but was never reported: https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Mitchell&diff=prev&oldid=2522095

Ylevental (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. And I only ever made one edit on that article. Furthermore, I only fight vandalism. I do not perform vandalism. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least you actually replied this time. Ylevental (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only because you constantly harassed me into it instead of filing a false report against me. It was either reply or let you get away with it. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned how he posted something a couple of years ago. Why? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer that. He is trying to get me blocked from here because I helped a little bit I think (not much really but a bit) in getting him blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. This act is an attempt at revenge by Ylevental dragging DawgDeputy down in the process. I would point out that he also put stuff on my talk page, and then removed it and apologised to me off Wiki - an apology I deleted without response. I notice that he is sitting out a two week block at present for the disruption and I would recommend he be watched when the block ends as it could be that more accusations could come up. Basically he wants me shut off from Wikiquote because of what I stand for. I am patiently waiting for more Autism related quotes from the political realm here in Australia (the pandemic has delayed that not surprisingly) which is why I haven't been here and edited much for some time. TLPG (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note - I just noticed that Ylevental engaged in block evasion on Wikipedia using his IP to toss in a sock investigation linking the account belonging to an Adelaide based friend of mine who was blocked in 2016 and DawgDeputy to my account here and my blocked account on Wikipedia. As I have NEVER edited on this account over there (and will never do so for obvious reasons) there was no connection at all. Wikipedia realised it was him due to other edits he made and blocked the IP for block evasion. See here for that note, and see here for the sock puppet report and it's result. TLPG (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TLPG: I never mentioned you in this section, I was only talking about @DawgDeputy: So why would you claim that you are him? Because you and DawgDeputy are the same person. Ylevental (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ylevental: It has clearly been established otherwise. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We will see what the TLPG account has to say about this. Ylevental (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you what I have to say. Leave both of us alone. It doesn't matter if you didn't mention me in this particular section. This section is simply one part of the issue as a whole, which I have already covered above. Also, you are making things up yourself now. I never claimed to be @DawgDeputy: and I back his statement that it has been clearly established that we are two totally different people. You just went off because he reverted your socking attempt at the time (yes that was you - I geolocated that IP) simply because you removed content and for no other reason. Your conduct right now (IMHO) as reflected above shows that you just can't be trusted to be a good editor and justifies Wikipedia's decision to block you indefinitely (along with your block evasion there!). I'll leave that for people like @Koavf: to ponder on. After all, you've already sat out one block here for harassment. I suggest you back off both DawgDeputy and me. TLPG (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to know why you replied when I didn't mention you, that's all. Seems suspicious. Ylevental (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TLPG: Also, you say "You just went off because he reverted your socking attempt at the time (yes that was you - I geolocated that IP)". How would he have known that I was socking if he didn't know anything about me? Your argument falls flat. (Yes, I will confess I socked back then). Ylevental (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic but this is too funny. Another reason why I'm suspicious https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJonathan_Mitchell&type=revision&diff=2524683&oldid=2524605. Ylevental (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop posting to this thread. Anyone who continues this here will be blocked. Nothing of value is happening in this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories question

I ask that another admin take a look at the following conversation (User_talk:Rupert_loup#FIFA_pages) and comment. The point is that I don't understand why it would be necessary to add either history categories or location categories to pages for specific sporting events. As an example, for a page for 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup has the category of Category:History of Germany added to it simply because it occurred in the past and was held in Germany. Similarly, for the page for 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup has the categories of Category:History of sport and Category:Sport in Canada, again simply because it occurred in the past and was held in Canada. I disagree with these categories - and if this logic is carried through for other pages, we would ad history categories for any event that occurred before today and many categories based on where the event was held (all of which seems excessive). Any thoughts from others? ~ UDScott (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think categorization here should be simpler and more intuitive than at en.wp, so if someone were thinking, "Boy, I'd like to know more about the history of Germany", I don't think he would expect quotations about a FIFA tournament. Sport in Canada makes sense to me, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bad IP editor with too many COPY-WRITE vios and personal problems 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64

@DawgDeputy: Please block problematic Thomas and Friends editor that now switch to copy-write vios. IP range block 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log). 2601:81:c402:ad20::/64 --Excellent Wikipedian (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While that IP deserves a decent blocking, that is not the same "problematic Thomas and Friends editor" you speak of. Obviously a sockpuppet of a nonsense-category buff:
98.214.101.235 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) DawgDeputy (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IPs in Toy Story

They refuse to stop making unnecessary edits. I request a year's worth of protection against these edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry afoot...

Silly editings (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

An obvious sockpuppet of the following two users:
66.32.20.68 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
Excellent Wikipedia (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

I request these three be blocked infinitely, all of their edits be struck from their history, and serious action be taken against it, lest it continue to push its agenda. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry afoot...

Silly editings (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

An obvious sockpuppet of the following two users:
66.32.20.68 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
Excellent Wikipedia (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

I request these three be blocked infinitely, all of their edits be struck from their history, and serious action be taken against it, lest it continue to push its agenda. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits on...

@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Koavf:
The Rescuers Down Under. A persistent set of IPs refuse to stop making blatant misspellings, adding unnecessary dialogue, and excessive, unwarranted emphasis. I request indefinite protection of those pages and indefinite blocking of these IPs to prevent further vandalism. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the page again. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits on...

@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Koavf:
The Rescuers Down Under. A persistent set of IPs refuse to stop making blatant misspellings, adding unnecessary dialogue, and excessive, unwarranted emphasis. I request indefinite protection of those pages and indefinite blocking of these IPs to prevent further vandalism. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I protected the page again. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for revision to be hidden ...

This edit should have its edit summary hidden. Aside from its offensive tone, it appears to divulge personal information about a Wikimedian. --SVTCobra (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent IP vandalism on...

...the following pages:

Journey Beyond Sodor
Are We There Yet? (film)
Big World! Big Adventures!
An Extremely Goofy Movie
The Adventure Begins‎
Thomas & Friends: The Great Race
And numerous seasons of Thomas & Friends beyond season 7.
@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
@Kalki:
A bunch of persistent IP vandals who do not understand the term: "You cannot fix what is not broken". I request indefinite blocking of these IPs and indefinite protection on the listed articles so this never happens again. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
@Kalki:

Based upon these edits, the above mentioned articles must be placed under indefinite protection. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All pages protected for a year, any other admins feel free to make it longer. If you give me a list of contribs, I will block. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one more I left out: Thomas & Friends: Sodor's Legend of the Lost Treasure.
Furthermore, one registered user is persistent in adding absolutely unnecessary emphasis to certain quotes, and it needs to be put to a halt.
Christian M. (2016) (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
DawgDeputy (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y Done on the protection. It's hard to tell that his edits are truly superfluous. E.g. this first off actually changes some of the quotations and may be more accurate and secondly, adding italics to asides is perfectly appropriate. I don't immediately see a need to escalate to any admin action and while some of these edits may be more or less superfluous, some of them seem genuinely helpful. Please let me know if the two of you are having some trouble communicating over best practices. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any protection on that page. And there is something else I neglected to consider: Around six months ago, Christian M. (2016) had an issue with The Lion King (2019 film) and its limit on quotes. Not only did he vandalize quotes, but he also added too many quotes that exceeded the 10-quote of limit for that film. I attempted to stop him, but he had refused to listen. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion by TVEBOR

Same edits, summaries and hounding to that of TVEBOR. Rupert Loup 07:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request lock

I request a lock to the page Love due persistent spamming: [169][170][171][172] - Rupert Loup 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Lint...

Template talk:Renameuser2

Also Wikiquote doesn't seem to have {{editprotected}} which would auto ping the relevant people I'm told.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done --DannyS712 (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Howtoeditsemi&oldid=2847922 -
https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?target=ShakespeareFan00&namespace=10&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions (top 3 edits.

I've attempted to resolve some more lint errors. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit Request for Template:QOTD Ranking

I'd solved a lint error for this template in a sandbox Template:QOTD Ranking/sandbox

Would it be possible for someone to review this and swap in the corrected version? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit Request for Template:Howtoeditsemi

This is an edit request for a protected template.

I had created a lint error fixed version of the template in a snadbox: Template:Howtoeditsemi/sandbox

A review of the fixed version and making it live if appropriate would be appreciated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dividers

whats the alternative for the old 50percent hr width? I couldn't see the lines anymore. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely phab:T262507 --DannyS712 (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's a mouthful. I still want to see the new code to replace them. The main dialogue spaces now look like one big block! --Eaglestorm (talk) 10:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The repaired code is reportedly fixed and ready to go but, as usual, we will not see the result until the next "release" of bundled revisions, whenever that is. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the either line or HR Width code showing correctly. thank you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warring in Mikhail Bakunin

Edit-warring, violation of 3RR rule

Rupert loup has started hounding me and doing personal attacks, especially since 3 October.

He has done massive edit-warring and broke the 3RR rule. Edit warring is not appropriate, and is disruptive to the project. The massive edit-warring is entirely due to him, and there is no indication that he seeks to build consensus or stop edit-warring.

A simple look at the undo log shows some of it [177]

Examples :

  • [178] Rupert is edit-warring to remove my vote at the AFD, breaking the 3RR rule. I doubt that the removal of a vote in an AFD is allowed, and he also deleted my later comment here
  • [179] Rupert is edit-warring to remove my vote at another AFD. I doubt that the removal of a vote in an AFD is allowed.
  • [180] I was making simple improvements to the article like adding better formatting, and Rupert reverts everything with the edit summary "rv to last good version", then he basically deletes the article by merging the content elsewhere and then deleting the merged content because he claims that the moved content has now become "tangential".
  • [181] deletion of my talkpage comment, doesn't want to have a discussion
  • [182] Personal attack: Calls me a "biased editor", other personal attacks were also done earlier
  • [183] [184] [185] edit warring just to remove NPOV templates
  • [186] [187] edit-warring to delete "Vote for deletion" template
  • [188] [189] I marked an article with "inuse" template to work on it, but this didn't stop Rupert from edit-warring and reverting all my changes without discussion and without edit summary

This is the "inuse" template:

This article is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while.
As a courtesy, please do not edit this article while this message is displayed. The person who added this notice will be listed in its edit history. If this article has not been edited recently, please remove this template.
This message is intended to help reduce edit conflicts; please remove it between editing sessions to allow others to improve the article.

yet Rupert Loup even edit-wars there while the article is marked as "inuse". I was shocked that he was doing this and that he couldn't even respect the "inuse" template.

He is clearly the one doing the edit-warring, while I have tried to remain calm, and use the talkpages. Wikis are supposed to be a collaborative environment, and Rupert acts as if he owns the place and the rules are only for others but not for him. He is reverting edits usually without edit-summary and without any talk page discussion. The goal here seems to be for Rupert to turn articles completely in line with his own pov, by simply removing all other opinions, views or pov's on bogus, spurious and made-up reasons (that of course don't apply to the content he is adding), and only leaving his own pov in an article, or by just deleting the article. Doing this while refusing to seek consensus is also a form of vandalism. I'd like to collaborate with him and get some consensus, but with this abrasive edit-warring on his part, and refusal to accept other views than his own, he makes it currently impossible. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 23:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@დამოკიდებულება: Personal attacks and edit-warring are not acceptable but are not vandalism. This really belongs at Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Justin. I have made now moved it here (and added some bit of text). --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

S. K. Malik

I was going to add this comment to the VfD but I think that is better suited to be here. Comparing the article before and the current version we can see a heavy quote mining in order to advance a POV in an article about a living person. This is Hoaxing vandalism, and is against all the goals and principles for what WQ stands, specifically the accuracy part in WQ:WQ and the WQ:NPOV policy. According with WQ:VIP "Wikiquote's definition of vandalism is the same as Wikipedia's and can be seen at w:Wikipedia:Vandalism." That means that policy applies here. And this behavior extend to all the pages in WQ edited by the creator of Malik's article, User:დამოკიდებულება. I found several cases of fabricated quotes, quote mining, fringe source, etc. In the Malik's article we can see a fabricated quote (that was taken down after I pointed out that was false.) The editor tried to POV push that when Malik talks about "terror" he was talking about doing terrorism, when he clear stated that he sees the term in the same philosophical way that J. Robert Oppenheimer in the concept of "balance of terror", and amusingly the editor just took out Liddell Hart completely out of the article:

  • Before: "Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results."
  • After: "Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart's dream into a reality."

Combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source is W:WP:SYNTH, and is something that this user have been doing all over WQ. I think that all the articles edited and created by this user need to check out and if they cannot be fixed just nuke them W:WP:NUKEIT and start all over again with reliable sources. Rupert Loup 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

And now the editor is again with the old habit of puppetry. Rupert Loup 19:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to post here or will my comment be deleted by Rupert as he did at the AFD discussion of Malik that he discusses here?

I have written before that one always needs to double check what Rupert says, unfortunately this is also the case here:( Also this is part of the personal attacks and harassment of this user against nearly all other editors he disagrees with that has been going for long time. Rupert's personal attack claim that I am Chrisahn is also baseless.

The first thing to note is that I didn't have time to work on this article. Literally during the time I started it, Rupert was edit-warring in this and in many other articles, and he hasn't stopped edit-warring since then during this whole time despite clear warnings that he should stop, due to this situation I couldn't do any reasonable work during this time.

The claims by Rupert are obviuosly completely bogus, and I will post a fuller reply as soon as I have time. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to put in your fuller reply in which Meenakshi Jain's books is Harsh Narain mentioned. Rupert Loup 21:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Rupert writes he is "Comparing the article before " but the version that Rupert is linking is a version where Rupert already deleted a lot of quotes.

There are two claims Rupert makes

1) The editor tried to POV push that when Malik talks about "terror" he was talking about doing terrorism, when he clear stated that he sees the term in the same philosophical way that J. Robert Oppenheimer in the concept of "balance of terror"

2) and amusingly the editor just took out Liddell Hart completely out of the article.

First, the "editor" has not chosen these quotes himself, these quotes have been selected by scholars discussing the work. Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, it is a collection of quotes, and the quotes I added in the article were all quoted and attributed by other scholars. It is possible that these scholars have not chosen the best quotes, but in general, there is nothing wrong with starting an article with quotes about a work that were already selected and quoted in a published source by a scholar, instead of doing original research and choosing quotes. There is no violation at all as long as the quotes are attributed (which they were until Rupert deleted it). Rupert is totally misleading when he says I took anything out of the quote. I repeat, the quotes were attributed to other scholars, and clearly marked as attribution!

Point 1). About Oppenheimer in point 1). Malik mentions Oppenheimer and balance of terror only once in passing when discussing strategy in Western military theory:

With the invention of the atomic weapons, there appeared, between 1945 and 1955, a class of strategists who looked upon the nuclear bomb as the 'absolute' weapon of war. Accordingly, they formulated the theory of the strategy of balance of terror, best described by the similitude of 'two scorpions in a bottle', a metaphor coined by J. Robert Oppenheimer. With further developments in nuclear bombs and greater knowledge of their effects came Dulles' theory of massive nuclear retaliation enunciated in 1954 and McNamara's flexible response. This was followed by other schools of thought hovering round graduated deterrence, second strike capability and the oceanic system. In 1959, Albert Wohlstetter denounced the theory of the 'balance of terror'. His thesis was that a deterrent force existed only if it was capable of inflicting reprisals. He laid down a set of six conditions for a second strike capability and came to conclude that the United States possessed none of them at that time...

That is the only mention in the text. Rupert's claim that he "clearly stated that he sees the term (terror) in the same philosophical way that J. Robert Oppenheimer in the concept of "balance of terror" is either not honest or he cannot understand and read the text.

Ibn Warraq also writes: "Malik constantly quotes Western experts on the causes of war such as Geoffrey Blainey, Bernard Brodie, and Liddel Hart only to dismiss their sociopolitical arguments as irrelevant to Islam".

Point 2). About Liddell Hart in point 2). What is Liddell Hart's dream, and what is the context?

Liddel Hart is a military theorist. Malik refers to Liddel several times, but in the relevant chapter he writes:

Opposed to the 'blood-red wine of Clausewitzian growth' Liddell Hart courted the idea of 'bloodless victories' and termed it as 'perfect strategy'. As examples of perfect strategy, he cited Caesar's Illerda campaign, Cromwell's Preston campaign, Napoleon's Ulm campaign, Moltke at Sedan in 1870, Allenby's Samaria campaign in 1918. and the German conquest of France in 1940. In Liddell Hart's language, strategy was 'the art of distributing and applying military means to gain the ends of policy'. The aim of strategy, he contended, was to produce a strategic situation so advantageous that 'it it does not of itself produce the decision, its continuation by battle is sure to achieve this'. Psychological dislocation of the enemy directed at producing a direct decision was thus the primary aim of Liddell Hart's strategy. "If this was not possible," he conceded, "then a physical or logistical dislocation must precede battle, to reduce fighting to the slenderest proportion." It follows that dislocation, the central theme of Liddell Hart's strategy, could be produced either in the physical or logistical sphere, or in the psychological sphere. Developing his thesis further, Liddell Hart tells us that, in the physical field, dislocation could be caused by upsetting the enemy's dispositions, dislocating the distribution and organization of his forces, endangering his rear and cutting his lines of communication. In the psychological sphere, it was the natural outcome of the physical effects produced on the enemy. Beaufre, the famed French strategist, agreed with Liddell Hart's theory of the psychological dislocation of the enemy but disagreed with his definition. In Beaufre's opinion, Liddell Hart's definition 'hardly differed from that of Clausewitz'.

After this discussion, Malik explains:

  • Let us now make an attempt to study the Quranic concept of strategy. The first step to this study is to understand the difference between total strategy, that is. Jehad, and military strategy. The term, Jehad, so often confused with military strategy, is, in fact, the near-equivalent of total or grand strategy or policy-in- execution. Jehad entails the comprehensive direction and application of' power' while military strategy deals only with the preparation for and application of 'force’. Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts including political, economic, social, psychological, domestic, moral and spiritual to attain the object of policy. It aims at attaining the overall mission assigned to the Islamic State, and military strategy is one of the means available to it to do so. It is waged at individual as well as collective level; and at internal as well as external front.
  • Waged in its true spirit, and with the multiple means available to it, the Islamic concept of total strategy has the capacity to produce direct results. Alternatively, however, it creates conditions conducive to the military strategy to attain its object speedily and economically. Military strategy thus draws heavily on the total strategy (Jehad) for its successful application. Any weakness or strength in the formulation, direction or application of the total strategy would affect military strategy in the like manner. In the absence of Jehad, the preparation for and application of 'force' to its best advantage would be a matter of exception, not rule. Conversely, optimum preparation and application of the military instrument forms an integral part of Jehad.
  • What then is the Quranic concept of military strategy? Instructions pertaining to the divine theory on military strategy are found in the revelations pertaining to the battles of Badr, Ohad, Khandaq, Tabuk and Hodaibiyya. ....
  • In the situations referred to above, we see that whenever Almighty Allah wishes to frustrate and destroy the designs of His enemies, He does so by strengthening the hearts of the Believers, and by sending down calm and tranquillity upon them as from Himself. We, therefore, infer that, to prevent our adversaries from imposing their will and decision upon us in war, it is essential for us to maintain a state of calm, assurance, hope and tranquillity amongst our ranks. But, what should we do to impose our will and decision upon the enemy? To find answer to this question, let us make another probe into the Book.
  • Talking of Badr, the Holy Quran addresses the Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him), "Remember, thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message), “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers."9 Again in the battle of Ohad, the Book identified the causes of the Muslims defeat and provided them divine guidance about their future course of action. Should the Muslims observe the divine code of conduct prescribed for them, the Book held out a promise, saying, "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Un- believers." On the question of instilling terror into the hearts of the enemies, a reference is also available in Sura 'Ahzab', pertaining to the battle of Khandaq. "And those of the people of the Book who aided them," the Holy Quran referred to the treachery of Banu Quraiza, "Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things."11
  • We see that, on all these occasions, when God wishes to impose His will upon His enemies, He chooses to do so by casting terror into their hearts. But, what strategy does He prescribe for the Believers to enforce their decision upon their foes? "Let not the Unbelievers think," God commands us directly and pointedly, "that they can get the better (of the Godly): they will never frustrate them. Against them make ready your strength to the utmostof your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know."
  • The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart'- of the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy. In this strategy, guarding ourselves against terror is the 'Base'; preparation for war to the utmost is the 'Cause'; while the striking terror into the hearts of the enemies is the 'Effect'. The whole philosophy revolves round the human heart, his soul, spirit and Faith. In war, our main objective is the opponent‘s heart or soul, our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we hare to keep terror away from our own hearts.
  • The Quranic strategy comes into play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy. Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the 'war of muscles' having already won the 'war of will'. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart's dream into a reality.

Malik says that psychological preparation for war is important, and that preparation must be wholesome (psychological and physical). And Malik's strategy to achieve this "dream" includes "striking terror into the hearts of the enemies".

Rupert doesn't explain what is wrong with excluding the reference to Liddell. (As said above, it is NOT me that did exclude Liddell, it is Ibn Warraq!!). Besides, a quotes should be understandable to the reader, quoting the part of Liddell would make it necessary to make the quote much much longer because the whole context about Liddell would have to be added too, and include text from previous paragraphs, and therefore much less quotable, without adding much. This "dream" is not a "pacifist" dream. The German conquest of France in 1940 was a blitzkrieg that was relatively bloodless for the Germans (163,676 casualties) but not so much for the victims (2,260,000 casualties).

Malik ends the chapter with:

  • Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we, wish to impose upon him.
  • Psychological and physical dislocation is, at best, a means, though, by no means, conclusive for striking terror into the hearts of the enemies. Its effects are related to the physical and spiritual stamina of the opponent but are seldom of a permanent and lasting nature. An army that practises the Quranic philosophy of war in its totality is immune to psychological pressures. When Liddell Hart talks of imposing a direct decision upon the enemy through psychological dislocation alone, he is taking too much for granted. Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent's Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the spiritual dislocation. To instil terror into the hearts of the enemy, It is essential, in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Quran has the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective, be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence must be capable of striking-terror into the hearts of the enemy.

So Malik actually criticizes Liddell for "taking too much for granted".

This book is not some manifesto of pacifism, it could be described as Islamist, and defending inhuman practices like Jizya and submission of infidels, and war.

This is a manual that others described as:

  • The most influential treatise on why Jihād is necessary and how it must be fought.
  • The continued relevance of The Qur’anic Concept of War is indicated by the discovery by US military officials of summaries of this book published in various languages on captured and killed jihādist insurgents in Afghanistan. This is hardly a surprising development as Malik finds within the Quran a doctrine of aggressive, escalating and constant jihād against non-Muslims and the religious justification of terrorism as a means to achieving the dominance of Islam around the world—dogmas that square with the Islamist ideology driving terrorism worldwide. The endorsements of Zia al-Haq and Allah Bukhsh K. Brohi, the late advocate-general of Pakistan and former Pakistani ambassador to India, “established Malik’s views on jihād as national policy and gave his interpretation official state sanction.”
  • This book brings out with simplicity, clarity and precision the Quranic philosophy on the application of military force within the context of the totality that is Jihād. The professional soldier in a Muslim army, pursuing the goals of a Muslim state, cannot become “professional” if in all his activities he does not take the “colour of Allah.” The nonmilitary citizen of a Muslin state must, likewise, be aware of the kind of soldier that his country must produce and the only pattern of war that his country’s armed forces may wage.

See the first version of the article for these quotes, and there are many more such quotes about the book by other scholars too. Ibn Warraq and Andrew Bostom are scholars and specialists on Islam, and is probably more to be trusted here than a random person on wikiquote who believes that the text talks about love, peace and harmony.

In fact, what is happening here is a whitewashing or censoring of notable and important views and aspects. War is an important aspect and topic in almost all religious texts in all world religions, but Rupert only censors allusions to war in articles about Islam. User:DanielTom has described such as a form of vandalism. For example, in articles on Jihad and related articles he removed quotes from the Encyclopedia of Islam and of orientalists and scholars like Bernard Lewis and T.P. Hughes, in an article about the Al-Hidaya (which is a Sharia text) he at first deleted all quotes about war and replaced them with one bland quote, or at the article Apostasy in Islam he added the NPOV tag (which implies that Rupert thinks that Apostasy in Islam should be portrayed positively IMO, but maybe Rupert can explain) And he was whitewashing whole articles about racism by blanking them and redirecting [190].

As expected, Rupert's claim is completely bogus and ludicrous, and another cheap personal attack on me.

As I wrote earlier: Another related bogus claim that he uses for deletions is the claim of "fabricated quote" or "failed verification" which he never proves. He made this claim on many articles like Al-Hidayh [191], but actually all the quotes were correct quotes from the Al-Hidaya, and I have been adding them later with online links to the copy to an online source. [192]. The same bogus claim was made at LGBT_in_Islam and many other pages, see Talk:LGBT_in_Islam. Another bogus claim was "can't verify" used at first for this book by Malik, and that he wants to delete quotes because he doesn't like the views or opinions of scholars and authors like Ibn Warraq.

So this time he made a whole section out of this bogus claim, but this is probably better than just to edit-war without discussion. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Metro 6000 series

@Koavf:

Tokyo Metro 6000 series (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Completely ruined Ralph Breaks the Internet. I attempted to rename it to its original, but the vandal in question had already done the damage. I request that this vandal be banned for life, and all of its edits struck down as if they never existed. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the following IP only added to the problem:
2601:240:4180:6A50:C5AF:B46F:E2C:C8CD (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) DawgDeputy (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohtekhej‎

Posting unauthorized caricatures of real people, awarding false barnstars to administrators, block evasion (clearly, this one is a sockpuppet), and likely spreading an agenda. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie's Angels

Hello, Please move Charlie's Angels (TV series) to Charlie's Angels to match the Wikipedia title.--Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy

Democracy was protected indefinitely over a year and a half ago. Can this protection be lifted so I can edit ? --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 01:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend to administrators not to open the door for IP vandals, even if the one who requested the protection removal is not a vandal. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rupert loup has accused me of block evasion, and is vandalising

This is not true. Rupert loup is lying. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 01:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert has also been edit warring and reverting edits without discussing it prior, and without writing a cogent edit summary. He is doing the same edit warring that had resulted in his one week ban. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 02:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and now I have been accused of being a sockpuppet by rupert loup and dawgdeputy. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 04:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and now rupert is vandalising my talkpage, as can be seen here. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and rupert loup is edit warring right here as well. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:5D6:EBDA:4936:13EA 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any irrefutable evidence he is lying, or are you clearly hounding him?
Furthermore, you never thoroughly discuss your edits prior to reverting his, either. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot prove a negative. I can prove that rupert loup has accused me of block evasion, as you can see with his edit here, and with his edit summaries here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and so on.
some of my edits I did discuss in the edit summary, for example, in edits such as these I did write in the edit summary Trotskyist Fraction – Fourth International is hardly a notable source or a reliable source or a neutral source, and in these edits I wrote in the edit summary red flag is not a good source. In others I wrote dead link, Contrary to the accepted Marxist interpretation, Hitler was not an opponent of Marxism and did not want to destroy it because he was ‘inimical to labour’ but because he was caught up in the insane idea that Marxism was an instrument of the Jews for the achievement of world domination, and above all because he rejected internationalism, ‘pacifism’ and the negation of the ‘personality principle’ by Marxism.” Rainer Zitelmann, Hitler: The Policies of Seduction, P137-138, misleading image, this one is better, George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police, pp 197-198, convicted sex offender. There were a few that I did not write any edit summary in, for my part I didn't think these edits would be contentious - after all, not every edit made has an edit summary. And yet rupert loup did not once take his queries to the talk page, or ask me why I made one edit or another. Instead, he reverted all these edits and either had no edit summary as to why he was reverting them, or in the edit summary accused me of evading block. --2001:8003:59DB:4100:4185:9870:CA06:212B 05:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet(s) of one TVEBOR

2001:8003:59db:4100:5d6:ebda:4936:13ea (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
2001:8003:59DB:4100:8143:D03B:1CB6:4B4C (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Falsely accusing one Rupert loup of lying when the evidence is all in these IPs history of edits and block evasion. Perfect match for TVEBOR's editing patterns, summaries and all. Protect all pages on which they made their edits so these edit wars come to a complete stop. Oh, and one of them is demanding removal of protection of a certain page that had been protected indefinitely from vandalism, but I must advise against it. Do not open the door for (potential) IP vandals. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IP range is 2001:8003:4000:0:0:0:0:0/35, same as always. 15:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello again, I recently saw his (User:Rupert loup) edits warring in this (Jessica Chastain) and many pages. And I am surprised, He have been continuously reverting the sourced quotes.--Saroj Uprety (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of User talk:Atcovi

I've been hit by IP addresses leaving me nonsensical messages. Can an admin please apply a protection to my talk page? -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 04:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done by Ningauble --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wishbone (TV series)

Semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism. Saroj Uprety (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Follow That Bird, Barney's Great Adventure, and anything else related to PBS television series. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ningauble:
@Koavf:
@Kalki:
@UDScott:
@DannyS712:
@Hasley:
@Martin Urbanec:
@Tegel:
Update: This kind of vandalism continues on, and it needs to be put to a stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DawgDeputy: None of those seems like vandalism to me and at least one just harmonizes the name that is listed here with the name at en.wp. How are any of these edits "vandalism"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a serious issue on Wikipedia, as well. Vandalizing IPs have been putting anachronistic company names in other PBS-related articles and the like, and refuse to explain their edits. Many an IP had been blocked as such there, with the pages they vandalized receiving protection. It should be no different here. Blocking the IPs will not stop them. Protecting the pages indefinitely will. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have also found the problem on PBS related television series. I had contacted the administrator for protection, but it is not protected yet. Saroj Uprety (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles listed above are not protected. If more are needed, please list them here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection of User talk:Tegel

Hi. Consider semi-protection of my talk page due to vandalism. Thanks. -- Tegel (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

172.58.35.117

172.58.35.117 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Made unnecessary edits to Dumb and Dumber and referred to me by a false name (the IP assumes I am someone else, but without irrefutable evidence, I find that minor attacking). I request that that edit summary be stricken, but if this happens again, the IP be blocked. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an independent admin look

I have recently been engaged in discussion with User:Rupert loup regarding the removal of sourced quotes across the site with dubious reasons (often citing a lack of notability) that I disagreed with. This is also not the first time this issue has come up with this user (refer to their talk page for other incidents in the past). In attempting to discuss the matter and gain an insight into why the quotes should be removed, the discussion took a turn for the worse and my comments were blanked and I was told not to post any more on their talk page. I still feel the removal of many of the quotes (not all) was unjustified and that this user does not fully understand the criteria for including a quote on our site. I am asking for one of my fellow admins (or several) to take a look and comment - and perhaps even step in as I fear that it is likely impossible for me to resolve this peacefully with this user. Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fill a report in Meta with this and all the other abuse that I received over the months here and your indiference on it. I told you that I don't want you to write in my talk page. It's not civil to make commentaries as "solely to satisfy you that the quotes are accurate." Arguing about notability authors and then talking that the notability of authors is not important according a policy talking out of context, ergo the problem was not if there are notable or not in the first place. And then in my talk page arguing about something when your motive is other is bad faith: sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another. When I call [Edit: stated] that I don't want [Edit: this admin] to engange in bad faith in my talk page the response that I recieved [edit: a letter] is "I am discussing this in good faith. I do not believe you are acting in good faith" That was the original motive in the first place. Assuiming bad faith fails WQ:FAITH "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiquote. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." I'm not obliged to engage with bad faith user in my talk page (nor anywhere in WQ). Respect my talk page and that I don't want you to write there. Rupert Loup 20:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll comment one more time before leaving it to others to judge...with regard to my comment that you have quoted from, I did of course initially assume good faith with your edits, and have done so for quite some time, even though I have disagreed with some of your removals in the past as well. What I meant by my comment was that your recent actions and the way in which you have argued them have now led me to question whether or not you were in fact acting with good intentions. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Initially where? What was the excact point? Before or after stating that the notability of the authors didn't matter in the begining and take a policy out of context? We already have that discussion before in 2017 and you totally ignored me at that time. You also said that you were "quite familiar with WQ:Q". So explain to me why you took out a policy out of context just because you believe that I was acting in bad faith? You don't have to answer, is a rethorical question. It doesn't matter because you already said that you assumed bad faith on me so don't write in my talk page ever again. You can engage with me here or in the Village pump. Rupert Loup 21:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  • My initial observations about the responses by Rupert loup are a bit befuddled. There is strenuous objection to some edits on your talk page, but the accompanying links point somewhere else. The overall thrust of the complaint is not very clear to me except that there is some disagreement about the meaning or applicability of some policies where you do not appear to recognize the substance of UDScott's questions and objections. I really do not understand the refusal to communicate with one of Wikiquote's most experienced administrators. I will have more to say on a later date when I have reviewed the history of discussion, edits, and blocks. In the meantime, please provide a link to your filing at Meta, which will hopefully explain the situation more clearly. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ningauble: I'm talking about Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, and I'm going to report it if this admin continue to abuse my talk page. First there were the constant abuse by that Australian IP that extended for months, and this admin didn't gave a crap, then was Prapat with the accusations of copyright, the hounding and harassment to try to delete my content becuase he just didn't like it, and now the accusation of vandalism by that forum Shopping, POV pushing, sock-puppeter user that has filling all Wikiquote with extremist content by unreliable and fringe authors like Koenraad Elst and other islamophobics that inspired terrorists like Anders Breivik and Brenton Harrison Tarrant. I raised this issue in 2018 and nobody cared. And now that I decided to clean up the mess sudenly UDScott is worried about civility and threatened to block me for not want that bad faith edits in my talk page. Why this admin is not concerned for the accusation of vandalism and the forum shopping? That's not disruptive and uncivil? I'm not going to engage with any disingenuous user in WQ. Rupert Loup 22:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the devil, here is that harasser IP again doing block evasion. Are you going to do something about it UDScott? Rupert Loup 02:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your personal attacks. Accusing someone of extremism and terrorism is a serious personal attack, and I have also never done abusive sockpuppetry. I have also not complained about extreme anti-India, anti-Hindu, anti-Indian government, pro-Islamist, apologist or anti-liberal-Muslim POV. Your claims about other people are completely false, but this is not the place to go into discussions of random slander and defamations of other people. (This latest comment also seems to be copying the hounding and harassment by Xsapora, an user indef blocked on three wikis for hounding, personal attacks and other things) --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user has also deleted discussions from me and other users on his talkpage and has even deleted other people's votes in AFD discussions ([193] [194]). Rupert claims "abuse" and "bad faith, when he has not given good faith to other editors on many occasions, and when he himself has made personal attacks against other editors, and has been bullying, stalking, edit-warring and hounding other editors while refusing to seek consensus or to fairly discuss his actions. Rupert is often acting as if he owns this site and is the final arbiter on any content and is for example removing all other opinions, views or pov's on bogus, spurious and made-up reasons (that he of course doesn't apply to the content he is adding), and is doing so with abrasive edit-warring. He acts as if rules are only for others but not for him.

At the recent AFD on S.K. Malik:

  1. Before nominating an article to AFD, he deleted a lot of content from the article S.K. Malik.
  2. The AFD comes in the middle of abrasive edit-warring and deletions of sourced content for spurious reasons
  3. He even deleted my vote in the AFD
  4. His reasons for deletion in the AFD and in articles are spurious:
    1. For example, instead of citing wikiquote policies, he cites wikipedia policies, but the requirement for encyclopedic content is not identical to those for quotes, and makes arbitrary claims that are even irrelevant for this type of content (quotes)
    2. Or deletes content claiming WQ:CRITICISM, when the content (an author's own words) has nothing to do with criticism
    3. Or often just deleting content citing with no reason at all and no edit summary, and some of his deletions are "camouflaged" with other edits
    4. Or deleting content because he doesn't like the secondary source when the quote is marked as "SOURCE quoted also in SECONDARY SOURCE" citing arbitrary and irrelevant reasons
    5. Or deleting content because he claims he cannot verify the quote online. For example in the AFD about Malik, he claims that the source has to be online so that he can verify it online. But in fact an online source should not be used if one wants to be really sure that a quote is really accurate. Only the printed edition of the original book can verify if a quote is really accurate. In any case, it is not a requirement that a source is available online (but in this case, on-line copies can be found if one searches for it)
  5. Many of the quotes he is adding himself don't satisfy his own criteria that he mandates for others, let alone wikiquote policy. I have noted his additions of non-notable quotes in many high level articles like the articles "Democracy", "Economy", "Power", "State", "Rights", "Violence" and many, many others ([195] among many other examples)
  6. Refusal to seek consensus and to accept other views than his own makes it very difficult to work with him. While I have noted such kind of behaviour to other editors previously, it has unfortunately gotten worse.

The bogus claim "can't verify online" has been used by Rupert loup many times to support deletions of sourced content, for example:

  • Deletion because Can't verify (I'm not familiar with the source, but the link shows that the source exists and can be checked)
  • Deletion because Can't verify (This is ridiculous: author, title, year and page number are given, and the source is widely available and is very notable)

Another related bogus claim that he uses for deletions is the claim of "fabricated quote" or "failed verification" which he never proves. He made this claim on many articles like Al-Hidayh [196], but actually all the quotes were correct quotes from the Al-Hidaya, and I have been adding them later with online links to the copy to an online source. [197]. The same bogus claim was made at LGBT_in_Islam and many other pages, see Talk:LGBT_in_Islam.

Rupert claims "bad faith", but when an user who has been many years on Wikiquote uses spurious bogus claims to remove reliably sourced content, and when his claims are not based on actual wikiquote policy and practice, (and by the same criteria, much of his own content would fail!), then one may also ask oneself questions of good faith.

When Rupert loup deletes NPOV templates from articles without any edit summary or discussion [198] [199][200], but at the same time he is regularly adding NPOV templates to articles [201] and reverts their removal from articles [202], then one may also ask oneself questions.

He is deleting quotes on spurious and bogus grounds often without discussion, but when "his" content is removed with a valid reason and discussion on the talkpage, he instantly reverts [203] [204]. He seems to think that the rules (and often made-up rules) are only for others but not for him.

At the AFD and in articles, another "reason" for deletion is because he doesn't like the secondary source when the quote is marked as "SOURCE quoted also in SECONDARY SOURCE" citing arbitrary and irrelevant reasons. For example, the Hadith and the Hidayah (an important Sharia text) are major Islamic texts, but when a quote from such a text is added with the note "as quoted/attributed in T.P. Hughes", or "also quoted in Ibn Warraq", then he reverts it claiming that he has a problem with the secondary source, because for example, T.P. Hughes (an eminent orientalist) had a Christian bias, or Ibn Warraq has his own biases, and therefore they are not "reliable and independent". But in fact it is standard practice to have attributed quotes in wikiquote, and there are many examples: there are thousands of quotes in wikiquote that are marked as "attributed to", or marked as "quoted in". And then Rupert comes and makes the arbitrary claims that the quotes he doesn't like are not "allowed" because they are attributed. As long as it is clearly marked as an attribution, there should be no problem. Otherwise we couldn't quote even the Hadith, since a common English translation "was published by the Islamic University of Madinah and many have associated the university with the Wahhabi Salafi ideology, and have stated it has exported Salafi-inclined theologians around the world".

And my vote at two recent Votes for Deletion has been deleted by Rupert loup. ([205] [206]) I hope and trust that the closing admin will check the article history and take my vote into account when closing the vote. Everyone has the right to vote. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were clear warnings given to Rupert loup to stop his edit-warring, including his deletions using spurious and bogus claims, including these warnings:

Rupert loup has continued with the edit-warring and deletions without talkpage discussion (even less than 8 hours after the warnings: [207] [208], which has continued until today [209] [210] etc, and has again deleted content from an ongoing AFD [211], has deleted "Vote for deletion" templates [212] [213], has again deleted NPOV templates [214], and has again unilaterally deleted a whole article against consensus without going through a discussion process, see Talk:Racism in the Arab world.

Rupert loup has deleted reliably sourced quotes from the article Racism in the Arab world, including quotes from Bernard Lewis, one of the greatest scholars on Islam, who also wrote well known studies on Racism in the Arab world, so pertains very much to this article, and other scholars like David Brion Davis, and Murray Gordon, which I have been adding just a few hours ago. All these edit-warring Rupert does without discussing his actions on the talkpage and seeking consensus. Here is the article history [215]. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that many of the recent actions taken to remove many quotes are suspect. I am particularly dismayed by the action to change entire pages to redirects, without porting the quotes on them to the the redirect target. This has the effect of deleting an entire page of sourced quotes. There may be issues with individual quotes, but to remove the full page en masse is not recommended practice. Rather than foment a continued edit war, I will defer to other admins for now to comment and address these actions as I wish to remain recused from it given my already ongoing dispute with this user. I trust that an independent review by one of my fellow admins will lead to a resolution. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert has also previously changed entire pages to redirects, recent examples I've seen are [216] [217] [218], and without talk page discussion or merger proposals. That is not how a consensus-based process works. He often acts like he owns this place and with this behaviour it seems that the opinions of others and other views don't matter to him. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert is continuing his edit-warring ([219] [220], etc), and has again deleted the article Racism in the Arab world, and there is no indication that he will respect the warnings, and start discussing instead of deleting, without discussion or for bogus reasons, properly sourced content that pertains to the page's topic. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see this thread when it was first started yesterday. i did not want to immediately jump in, until I had a chance to check my recollection about my own interaction with User:Rupert loup. I also do not like to get involved in contentious wiki-discussions for fear of a boomerang.

Having said this I would like to say that I found Rupert loup to be helpful when I first started editing at wikiquote. Also, seems to me this user does a lot of work around here. I admire the user's willingness to do the heavy lifting: cleaning up articles. This is something many here (including me) refuse to do because it has the potential of getting one into disagreements. From where I stand I do not believe this user deserves the harsh criticism he has been getting.

That's all I want to say. I hope I have managed to contribute without hurting anyone's feelings. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Rupert loup should be blocked for a while. He keeps reverting and redirecting whole pages (e.g. Fatwa, Racism in the Arab world) and removes large parts of other pages without discussion (e.g. Joseph Goebbels, Hindu-Islamic relations). Maybe some content on the pages needs to be removed or improved, but this kind of extremely aggressive editing is disruptive. -- Chrisahn (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weird that this user didn't edit Wikiquote until now, and also weird that all the Right-wing users in WQ are starting to POV pushing in synchronized way. Soapbox Sam, lol don't make it that obvious guys. Rupert Loup 22:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm more active on Wikipedia. Your behaviour seems almost paranoid to me. Here it certainly violates WQ:AGF. Cool down. Take a break. If you can't do it voluntarily, an admin should force you. Sorry. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chrisahn: It took me a year to be in this paranoid state of mind. You just came here and you are already there. That's a testament on how toxic this place has become. Going back to the issue, I received this message by WeNotMeC020, which is similar to the rationale that UDScott gave in my talk page before, which is not according with the WQ:Q. The notability of the publisher is not a proof of notability on the author, a lot of non notable/unknown persons have they work published by known outlets. The discussion about adding non notable authors, news, and quote mining already have taken place before in July 2019. When Om777om did exactly that, and GreenMeansGo at that time said "These are hardly even genuine quotes. For example, the actual space in the article between the beginning and end of the first quote is 433 words, reduced here to 128. That's essentially manufacturing a quotation from a news article. This is also not the first time this issues has been brought up." and "Just because you appear to be preoccupied with contemporary politics does not mean that everyone else is also" and Ningauble said "It is a fake, a false attribution, a lie. Combining ideas is sometimes a good idea, but it is not quotation, and does not belong here at Wikiquote. Three administrators (at least) have advised you about this, but you seem to believe it is fair and just to manipulate excerpts in this way. You are mistaken, and you should be advised that inserting false information as alleged "quotes" is grounds for blocking your account." (and that comment by Ningauble applies also in the issue that I was discussing here a week ago). Both Om777om and WeNotMeC020 have the same interest (US politics and Theosophy), used the same sources and have the same style on quoting. What I'm seeing is that different users of all the political spectrum and beliefs are trying deviate Wikiquote from the original goal, that is making an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations, and turn it in a news/blog/site aggregator. That content is making the site into a troll magnet. That pages that I redirected are POV troll magnets. I don't know when exactly or why that changed because there is barely discussion in the VP and here. But something changed and I'm not interested in contribute in a (news, blog, social media, etc) site aggregator. There are thousands of sites with that specific purpose that have way more activity than here. Without neutrality and no content curation, the content added by all editors that took the time to properly add content according with the spirit and goals of WQ policies (independent of their political views and beliefs) will be degraded and buried. I realise during this week that there is just not enough people discussing the issues, if there is no discussion that means that there is no enough of a community here to make consensus and advance the project. So I will (semi-)retire until I see more people participating. Rupert Loup 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
UDScott you said to Om777om:"Please be more careful (and precise) in your quoting from material. I have noticed this before, where you take parts of a quote and selectively omit portions of it - this seems to be done to push a certain POV and is a dangerous practice - especially as many may not check the original source to see if it is correctly captured here." What made you change your stance so drastically compared to now? Rupert Loup 20:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Rupert is again making personal attacks.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert has made personal attacks and harassment, has deleted reliably and properly sourced content that pertain's to the page's topic on spurious, bogus and made-up claims in order to remove other views and opinions, has been edit warring to remove my vote at two AFD discussions[221][222], or to delete my improvements of formattings in an article for no reason, or to remove NPOV templates from articles, or to delete "Vote for deletion" templates [223] [224], or even while an article is marked with the "inuse" template and so on.
And now he has broken the 3RR again :There were 5 reverts in less than 7 hours at Racism in the Arab world.--დამოკიდებულება (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rupert loup, whom I already said, has done A LOT of good work around here, has retired according to his talkpage. Unfortunaely he is being tarred with the same brush as wikiquote vandals, which, I believe, is very unfair. Just my presumptuous $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eaglestorm disruptive editing

User:Eaglestorm has reverted my edits three times now and this is a problem. I'm familiar with Wikipedia but Wikiquote does things a little differently and I am not as familiar with the project specific rules or which process to follow. Vandalism seems like too strong a word to describe this disruptive editing so I thought it was more appropriate to post here than on Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress. It doesn't seem appropriate to call it edit warring when these revert were spread over several weeks, rather than all in one day (as it would be on Wikipedia), but it is still a problem nonetheless.

If you want to skip ahead the article is Demolition Man (film) and here are the three diffs showing the reverts: [225][226][227] in reverse order, most recent first.

Now I will explain some of the problem with these reverts. This editor wrote only "loq trim" as his edit summary. This is not a meaningful edit summary. I later learned that this was probably meant refer to the Wikiquote guideline WQ:LOQ, but apparently typing ten whole characters is too difficult for this person. Even if I had somehow magically known what this project specific jargon had meant, the edit summary was still inadequate as it fails to explain why this user was deleting some quotes and not others, and why if anything needed to be trimmed it wasn't long chunks of dialog. Failure to follow the simplest rules and the basic courtesy of provide meaningful edit summaries is rude, but there is a much bigger problem with these reverts.

This person attempted to "correct" several quotes, and got it badly wrong. (I was surprised to see anyone "correcting" quotes at all, especially without any explanation or pointing to sources to show the new version was right.) When I restored my edits, I provided edit summaries to explain and I also started a discussion on the article talk page, hoping to get some discussion about why some quotes were deleted and not others. I clearly explained that the "corrections" were wrong, as I had checked both the script and the film itself. I provide a link to the script on the Talk page, and I could have provided Youtube clips if this person had made any effort to discuss. (I am ware the shooting script has some differences from the final film but it was not an issue in this case.) One of the "corrections" was so wrong it is just bizarre, this person was getting the brand name "w:Oscar Mayer Weiner" wrong, changing it to "Meyer", despite my clearly explaining that this was wrong in my edit summary (and on the talk page) and providing a wikilink to make it really easy to check. This editor does not even seem to be trying to improve the article. -- 109.76.214.107 04:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've probably posted this in the wrong place, so admins please do move this to the correct place as needed. I will check back over the next few days. -- 109.76.214.107 04:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're obviously obsessed about the article and its evident you come crying in here when things are not to your liking. Everything was ok until you came along and now that its been limited, you sound very desperate. you said it yourself things are done differently on WQ than WP, and if you can't hack it, you should just move along. I'm really sad for you, that you IP-hop to make a point that's basically not needed.--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me, there's not need to make personal remarks. I choose not to use fake names, I choose to edit anonymously without an account, as I am allowed to do. If people disagree with my edits I discuss WP:BRD. If an editor refuses follow the simple rules and the basic courtesy of explaining their edits or discuss changes, and repeatedly makes the same obviously incorrect changes then I have no choice but to take the problem up with administrators.
Eaglestorm ignored edit summaries, did not make any effort to discuss on the talk page, and repeatedly added obviously incorrect information to an article. It is not clear that Eaglestorm is making good faith efforts to improve the article. Those are problems that I hope the administrators will help to address. -- 109.76.214.107 07:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eaglestorm fixed an error in the article and thought it was appropriate to respond with the edit summary "fixed to accomodate whining anon's rant. happy?" [228] I hope administrators can see that this is uncalled for and WP:UNCIVIL. -- 109.76.214.107 07:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hahghaha. I just laugh at you trying to apply WP policy when WQ prolly has its own tenets here. I hate to say this, but your drive-by disruptions to the article are no different than those of other - for lack of a better word - shit-disturbers who've come to WQ all these years and trying to force their points in. Your rants are not worth my time. You should just move on to other activities, instead of wasting everybody's time. You couldn't be man enough to edit from a single IP - that's one point for IP sockpuppetry from you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
Eaglestorm has made his attitudes and opinions pretty clear. I await comments from administrators. -- 109.79.81.27 14:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sort of behavior considered acceptable on Wikiquote? Are the no admins on Wikiquote? Should I be asking on a different notice board? -- 109.76.209.8 13:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only your behavior is unacceptable. You failed to follow the rules in the first place. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Which rules did I fail to follow? Please explain.
DawgDeputy recently reverted my correction to the Demolition Man page, with an edit summary saying I didn't explain my change, but I did explain that I was reverting a misquote and I did explain again on the article Talk page too, with links to clips on Youtube so anyone could easily check the quote themselves.
Putting aside the uncivil behavior from EagleStorm for a moment (maybe people are fine with that) I would still have though actually getting quotes right was an important even essential part of Wikiquote, and that repeatedly adding incorrect quotes was clearly a problem. -- 109.76.200.104 21:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is not a legal source. If it is not legal on Wikipedia, it certainly is no different here. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eaglestorm again reverted, changing the quote and is still getting it wrong.[229] At first I didn't want to call this vandalism but since he continues to add clearly incorrect quotes to articles, and refusing to explain or discuss, it is vandalism.
Yes of course DawgDeputy, the film itself is the most important source! Please do check the film. I only mention YouTube on the article talk page as an even easier way for anyone to quickly check that popular quotes are correct, if they cannot check the original script. There's no excuse not to check when it is so easy. There is no reason to get film quotes so badly wrong, repeatedly, and after someone has reverted warning the quote was wrong. (The Edgar Friendly monologue wasn't even in the script, so there was no chance of accidentally getting it wrong because of that either. IMDB is a often unreliable but it actually manages to get the Edgar Friendly quote[230] right in this case, so it isn't being incorrectly copied from there either.)
Admins? Anyone? Do I need to escalate this or refile it somewhere else? Eaglestorm is persistently getting quotes wrong. I hope his edits aren't this badly wrong on any other articles he edits. -- 109.78.193.104 16:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So says the IPhopper obsessed with just ONE article. So funny with all these cries for help! I'm amused! --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not amused that Eaglestorm thinks getting quotes wrong is okay. I know admins are busy and these things can take time but it would be nice to get a helpful comment from someone please. (Eaglestorm seems to have finally checked the film and gotten the quotes almost right.) -- 109.76.133.190 06:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not? I'm so amused at your crywhining and obsession with one article. Don't you have anything else to do today? --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest these IPs be blocked and all articles on which they edited be protected against them if they should ever return. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So not only does Eaglestorm persistently get quotes wrong, he ignore warnings that he's getting quotes wrong, and is then rude and uncivil about mistakes he shouldn't even be making in the first place? On top of that DawgDeputy piles on in and restores his mistakes, and blames me for even pointing them out?
Stop making excuses for getting quotes wrong. Check your sources before you edit, but at least check them when people warn you've made a mistake. If you'd gotten the quotes right in the first place I might not have needed to complain to administrators, but it is breathtaking the arrogance of getting quotes wrong and then being rude about it. -- 109.76.133.190 13:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent IP vandalism on...

@Koavf: @Tegel: @UDScott: @Ningauble: @Kalki:

... Aladdin (1992 Disney film). Sockpuppet IPs have been making the same unnecessary edits without remorse or explanation, and it has to be put to a stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet IP with the same M.O. (according to the IP's talk page with inadequate apologies) is after Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin, Rocky III, etc. This has to be put to a stop. Seriously, this needs to shift to strictly registered users. IPs have been nothing but trouble. Listed below is the new sockpuppet IP:
2601:240:4180:6A50:154C:5156:6050:737B (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

DawgDeputy (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AC9016

AC9016 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

@Koavf:
@Tegel:
@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
This user has become a problem in Planes, Trains and Automobiles, making many unneeded changes without first consulting the article's talk page and belittling me in his edit-summaries by calling me names. I request drastic action be taken against him. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Drastic action" is demanded by a user with a known history of hostile behavior, even against users acting in good faith. I don't know what to describe that as but okay. I have been editing regularly on this site for about 4 years. I have made many dozens of edits, created 39 articles (14 more as an anonymous user), and all of my work on this site has been meticulous, considered and in good faith. DawgDeputy has a documented prior history- a long one- of hostile behavior. This assessment has been made before and it was not made by me. This user that reported me here, clearly just wanting to get me shoved off to the side, has been noted as hostile before and even warned to stop or be blocked. I have had precious few conflicts with any other users. This other user has them regularly. I have actually worked with several of this user's changes to the Planes, Trains and Automobiles page just in the past day. Altogether I expect and believe my overall record will speak for itself. --AC9016 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not demanding. Never was. You clearly have to control your anger. Furthermore, your name-calling aside, you should have taken those unnecessary edits to the talk page before starting an edit war. DawgDeputy (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding of this interaction and the disagreement regarding the page for the film Planes, Trains and Automobiles, I do not see someone acting in a malicious manner towards you. In fact, I agree that AC9016 has tried to accommodate some of your wishes in changing the page. As your disagreements continued, I would say that both of you were not entirely civil as could be in your discussions, but I do not find that the actions of this user rise to the levels you have described, nor that "drastic action" is necessary to take. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLubber/DawgDeputy whoever you are, I will thank you kindly to leave out any further lectures about my emotional state. They are irrelevant. You have MANY times now accused me of name-calling but all I am aware of was identifying you as a killjoy, which is a well-earned adjective so far as I can see, and identifying you by your former username of WikiLubber. You now seem to want to pretend that username never existed and take extreme offense anytime someone uses it. Do not expect everyone else to care about how you view this. It's a username. You should have picked a better one in the first place if mention of the first one bothers you so much. I did indeed open up the talk page, but you never showed anyway. Your behavior makes plain that despite your lectures, you don't go to the talk page first- you have a Library-of-Congress-sized catalogue, on your own Contribs page, of reverting edits by other users for any reason or none. I regret that an edit conflict arose but I deliberately worked to include some of your edits and ideas for the page in question. The rest, as far as I can see it, is on you. --AC9016 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DawgDeputy: You need to chill out. @AC9016: has posted three times on the article talk page thus far, and you have not engaged there at all. An edit summary like this one may as well not be any edit summary at all. Please do not come here requesting "drastic action" when you yourself haven't apparently made any attempt to discuss the issue at hand. GMGtalk 15:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I must never be referred to by my original name ever again. I does not suit me anymore, and it has caused nothing but trouble, and I want to forget all that.
But aside from that, I checked the changes and saw nothing worth undoing. Just made a few minor changes and rearranged a few quotes to go by order of how they were in the film. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I checked the changes and saw nothing worth undoing." Then why did you undo it repeatedly? GMGtalk 21:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, see, if a past username somehow caused trouble for you and proved to be a poor choice- that I can understand! Makes a lot more sense now that you want the old username left behind. I can and will respect that going forward. And thank you for making that minor edit today- I had meant to arrange the quotes to be in order for where they occur in the movie, and now that's taken care of. I think we can safely call the issue over this movie resolved. --AC9016 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenMeansGo: I believe DawgDeputy was referring to the current status of the page, the latest changes. They are acceptable to both of us now and I believe this has been worked out at this point. --AC9016 (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AC9016: Fair enough. For the record, yes, it is generally considered rude to refer to previous usernames where a user may have requested a rename for privacy reasons. GMGtalk 11:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have another set of sockpuppet IPs on our hands...

@Koavf:
@Tegel:
@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Saroj Uprety:
@DannyS712:
2601:240:4180:6A50:CCF:D7F9:78F1:FAB1‎ (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
2601:240:4180:6A50:60D9:CE91:D523:11E1 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
They are clearly sockpuppets of the following previously/still-blocked IPs (notorious for adding false categories and whatnot without explanation):
2601:240:4180:6a50:6940:a401:458b:539c (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
2601:240:4180:6A50:4939:AA83:4CA2:E97D (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
98.214.101.235 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)
These problematic IPs, who consistently reply with nonsense (such as inadequate apologies/excuses) and not signing their replies, need to be punished severely, and all pages on which they made their problematic edits be protected against them for no less than a year. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it only gets worse. When these IPs are not adding nonsense categories, they also add nonsense members of the cast, particularly in films involving Patrick Warburton.
Here is the following new IP sockpuppet:
2601:240:4180:6A50:A487:F981:8913:1F31 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log) DawgDeputy (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I chose not to give the new sockpuppet IP a warning, lest the IP send an inadequate apology for the IP's history of vandalism. The IP vandal is beyond redemption. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo disambig page

I am not sure where one s supposed to report this tpe of problem, but here goes:

The page Scooby-Doo which is supposed to be a disambiguation page is running rampant with all kinds of non-disabig additions. I know nothing about the topic, and only accidentally landed on the page, so thought I would bring to the attention of those who edit in that topic space. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a pure disambiguation page in the sense that, e.g., Jack Johnson is (two different people coincidentally sharing the name). I would just make this a page on the general Scooby-Doo franchise, which would include quotes relevant to the franchise as a whole over being limited to a single expression of it. BD2412 T 01:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus→‎Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus‎
Please correct the cut and paste move of these pages. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neutrality

User:Neutrality has deleted a lot of content from the following articles—Democratic Party (United States), Mainstream media and Alternative media. This was done without any discussion on the respective talk pages. User:Neutrality cited several times WQ:Quotability and WQ:NPOV in the summaries to justify the deletions but I am not completely familiar with Wikiquote's policies so I am asking if an administrator can clarify the situation. DonaldDuck (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think my edit summaries are pretty clear. Those pages had a massive morass of problems - they quoted extensively from random op-eds, bloated and redundant, repetitive/undue weight material. Some of the quotes on the Mainstream media page, for example, were from Russian government propaganda or obscure Holocaust-denying conspiracy theories. The pages sorely needed cleanup (and could almost certainly benefit from even more trimming and deletions). Neutrality (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Thanks for your post above. I don't believe I contributed to any of the articles mentioned above by User:DonaldDuckTom, but it is nice to be made aware of their existance on WQ. I see at the talkpage of Democratic_Party_(United_States) that you have been involved in trying to cleanup this article since at least 2016. That is impressive! and I don't blame you for losing patience since you seem to be getting very little help from others. However, I also see that you have removed a quote added by the OP (all lives matter by Donald trump) which I believe was a keeper. Is it possible that the baby got thrown out with the bath water? Thanks in advance for any clarification, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that quote, if it belongs anywhere, might be best suited to a different page? Neutrality (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

186.96.209.99

...is repeatedly removing a speedy deletion tag from Panda Ant, which he created himself. I do not want to engage in edit warring, so I decided to report it here. If there is not a policy against this, please let me know, as I have come from English Wikipedia. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 15:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and semiprotected for one month. Hopefully that will be the end of that. BD2412 T 17:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard for personal attacks

There should be created a Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks to go along with Wikiquote:Civility, that would help dealing with the personal attacks on WQ.

Maybe this would help with problem that Wikiquote talkpages are often littered with extreme personal attacks.

Personal attacks should never be used in Wikiquote. This noticeboard would allow an editor to report personal attacks. --ო ~ #SheSaid 22:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not merely use this Admins' noticeboard as it is? If you brought such concerns to this noticeboard (and especially if you labeled the concern as related to personal attacks), it would get the attention it needs. I for one find it difficult to keep track of the many disputes that seem to occur here, but I always notice when this noticeboard is used. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Breaks the Internet...

...needs longer protection against IP vandals. It has been an issue since October. It must be put to a permanent stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers...

...is long overdue for long-term protection. Several problematic IPs (all with the same MO) are randomly adding too many extra quotes and adding unnecessary emphasis. It must be put to a stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would send a warning to those IPs, but I cannot take any chances they will respond with a false promise/apology. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page. ~ UDScott (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection of Dario Šarić

Vandalism. —Hasley (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done ~ UDScott (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toy Story and The Iron Giant...

...are under attack by persistent problematic IPs. Namely the following:

24.170.255.67 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

This one constantly ignores the rules on quote limitations, and adds bias to some quotes. This IP needs to be blocked, and all of the pages on which the IP made its problematic edits be protected for no less than a year. DawgDeputy (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is gone now, but I have my eye on that one, and the pages where the IP made problematic edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@UDScott:
@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
Update. The IP is back. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit wars on both pages have stopped for a week. I will check back soon. If any IP adds too many quotes as likely too long from copyright-restricted works, both pages may be semi-protected for at least a year.--Jusjih (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama All-Stars and Pahkitew Island

Semi-protection: Continuous removal of content. --Saroj Uprety (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denied until the removal of content reappears. Have excessive quotes been added since 8 January 2021? If yes, reverting may be desirable.--Jusjih (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Topic

My name is Joseph Judy Jordan. I'm here to talk about something very important. It's called assuming good faith. You cannot mess with people's weather machines! Don't believe the junk, the lies you hear on the internet. I am NOT a vandal. Always remember that. You can't go into court and say that you didn't know what you were doing. Also, trying to poke fun at another user just for trying to fix mistakes or putting things how they think it should be is a major no-no. You cannot poke fun at a user or harass them or any of that crap. There was one law case on a Wikiquote editor named Jai Nesbitt. He was assuming everyone who disagreed with him was wrong. Remember the story in 2019 when he got smacked for poking fun right there! YOU CANNOT BULLY INNOCENT USERS! Remember: that is law, and it will get you in a lot of trouble. And you're a scumbag to do it. 152.26.199.24 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@152.26.199.24 Thanks for posting. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reddevil9312

Reddevil9312 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

This user has issues with me undoing vandalism on Ghost Stories (seriously, "and... sees a lot to be desired" is nothing but the user's personal bias). I was clearly fixing those issues. I request action be taken against this user. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my reading of the situation, I see two users with a difference of opinion on how to format a quote (and I see nothing rising to the level where "action" needs to be taken against one of the users. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a matter of opinion. The user formats quotes the wrong way by mashing words into one just because it is spoken fast (which, from what I have seen, is completely uncalled for, as there have been quotes here Wikiquote typed with words separate, despite the one who speaks said quote in faster tone than what the user in question believes). DawgDeputy (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not to mention their username, which has "devil" in it. Satanic usernames are NOT allowed. 152.26.199.24 18:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about User:Devil's Advocate? Why is this one allowed then? Ottawahitech (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I guess nobody found out? 152.26.199.24 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
152.26.199.24-- You are not helping. From your edits, you are clearly a troll. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are basing these username objections on, as my reading of the Wikiquote:Username policy would not prohibit these names to be used. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
152.26.199.24 is nothing more than a vandalistic troll and is of no help in this case. According to the above edit, that IP called Kalki "Butthole", which is a personal attack. 136.144.35.134 21:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to take a second to explain my side on the Ghost Stories issue. The contributions I made to the page, the entire reason I made the page, was to go hand-in-hand with the tongue-in-cheek nature of the dub of the show. As such, the explanatory notes with jokes in them, as well as the mashed together words, are supposed to be indicative of the comedy the show displays. Nothing against DawgDeputy, but they seem to be failing to grasp the point of the page, and want it to be played too straightforward to what the show deserves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reddevil9312 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
1. That is no excuse. Jokes or no jokes, those quotes were vandalized. It was absolutely unnecessary to mesh the words (which completely confuses the reader, among other problems) and add your own bias. Family Guy shows a great deal more of comedy, but their quotes here are normal, as should Ghost Stories.
2. We only allow two quotes per episode.
3. I was righting your wrongs and keep things simple.
4. Next time, sign. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling IP...

2603:6080:A740:C00:44D2:378B:19BE:115A (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Yes, it was only one edit, but it was clearly nothing more than a troll that violated protocol. I request that the talk page it vandalized (just because I used it on account of being randomly logged out) be deleted and protected from recreation. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Countryboy603

Countryboy603 (talk • contribs • global edits • page moves • block user • block log)

Addresses me as a "control freak" (a highly-offensive accusation), falsely alleges (as you can see in the false report above) I undo edits just because I do not like them (the user fails to provide irrefutable evidence), refuses to comply with Wikiquote's rules, etc. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DawgDeputy

This user has been reverting people's edits simply because he doesn't like their edits. Can you block him?--Countryboy603 (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said this when I restored this comment;
This allegation is completely false. This user should have known better. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

152.22.32.24/152.26.199.24

@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
@DannyS712:
@Tegel:
@Saroj Uprety:

In their feeble attempts to assist everyone here against vandalism, they only add to the problem by redoing vandalism, re-adding quotes in direct violation of quote limits, making a mockery out of me, unruly calling akko a bot without any evidence, false (and somehow personal) threats against other vandals (even sending such threats to a vandal is vandalism), etc. They have learned nothing from previous blocks. I request these IPs be blocked globally, and denied access to talk pages, lest any further damage be done. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DawgDeputy: I blocked one IP but the other doesn't appear abusive to me. E.g. you reverted him here and left a citation with no actual quotation. Please provide diffs of 152.26.199.24 that are vandalism and recent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one made a false threat, trolled another innocent user, as well as trolled another user simply because that user had a "satanic username", threatened false legal action against an administrator, clearly messed with the undo button (that user should never have vandalized),... I could do this all day. DawgDeputy (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these don't really warrant a block but legal threats (even made in jest, ha-ha, lol) are serious. As I have mentioned to you before, I need you to be more judicious about what is and is not "vandalism" and what the appropriate response is to posts that you don't like. Additionally, providing one or two diffs saves all us admins time rather than posting someone's user name and pinging all of us expecting us to piece together the problem. Your vigilance is appreciated but your zealousness undermines it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing quotes to Politically correct versions

I would like to request opnions from experienced WikiQuotians at:Talk:Margaret_Atwood#Changing_a_word_in_a_quote_to_a_word_that_is_politically_correct. I hope this is where one can post such requests? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied there, quotes should not be altered or censored, but should appear as originally written or spoken. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had the time to get involved in the intricacies of many issues here lately — but this is a quite simple matter: quotes should NOT be altered or censored. An altered quote is NOT a quote, and though some paraphrases of many statements have often become commonly quoted, and as such are sometimes added in addition to the originals, such paraphrases should not be used to replace the original. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 00:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can echo my colleagues that quotations should be true to how they were initially signed, spoken, or written but if somehow, the bowdlerized version of a quote becomes famous itself as a quote, then that should be included as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic comment: Thanks @Koavf I have just learned a new word: wiktionary:bowdlerize. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GRP spam filter

Our filter 65 at en.wikibooks is specifically geared towards GRP spam, and it's quite effective and with barely any false positives (at least on Wikibooks). It seems that en.wikiquote could definitely benefit from having this filter. (please ping me, I don't watch this page) Leaderboard (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard: I don't have advanced rights on en.wb and the content of b:en:Special:AbuseFilter/65 is private. If you want to email me the content of the filter, I'd be willing to add it here; I trust your judgement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Done. Leaderboard (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IP afoot...

I cannot call them vandalism, but these edits, among others on the IP's history of edits, are problematic, and the IP refuses to explain why the IP chooses to add personal bias and add too many quotes in violation of protocol. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last words in Disney animated films

Due to content disputes that began with problematic IP editors, I request that this page be protected indefinitely against them. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and even compounded if I may add by editors with no balls or delicadeza --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eaglestorm: That color commentary really was unnecessary. Protecting the page from problematic IPs will not stop that other registered user. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Beyond linkspam

A new editor, Avinoor3 came by and tried adding a link to a script for the page. I [deleted the link] but five hours later another editor, Noor2356, put in the same link in the intro of the page. No activity from both editors since then, but I suspect they're just the same guy. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattest user page

Please see Special:PageHistory/User:Mattest. NGC 54 (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the pages added by the anonIP editor. ~ ♞☤☮♌︎Kalki ⚚⚓︎⊙☳☶⚡ 11:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikiquote administrators and other users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikiquote at the linked page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian M. (2016)...

@Ningauble:
@Kalki:
@Koavf:
@GreenMeansGo:
@DannyS712:
@Tegel:
@Saroj Uprety:

A long history of problematic edits and ignoring rules, and in trying to undo vandalism (or so he egregiously claims), he continuously adds to the problem, and mocks those who undo his edits. He constantly claims he would never add unnecessary emphasis to quotes again, but he constantly breaks that promise without any remorse (besides, he should never have vandalized to begin with). And fellow user Eaglestorm (a longtime model editor) will back me up on this one. I request this user be blocked for good and is denied access to talk pages. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been quite delusional in claiming DawgDeputy, me and Wikilubber (whom he "assumed" DawgDeputy was) are his allies. It is practically insulting to the community that he has ran socks and boasts about it on his userpage. Patience and AGF are long-exhausted with this guy. and look at how stupid he is forumshopping all the editors that have been pinged in a rather templated and copasted message! Address the issues here boy, not by scurrying off to each editor. Have the banhammer ready, he's just done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, that editor claimed he was leaving Wikiquote, but no matter what, he just continues to come back for more, and acts like a drama queen on his own user page before undoing his own drama-queen edits (undoing his own edits will never undo the damage). Christian M. (2016) lied yet again. DawgDeputy (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian M. (2016), DawgDeputy: Guys, fighting over if something should be "I want you to join me. We can rule together and bring a new order to the galaxy!" or "I want you to join me. We can rule together and bring a new order to the galaxy." is such a waste of time. Can you two collaborate? Can you not name-call? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I make a suggestion? Christian M. (2016)'s edits are becoming very annoying to us. In fact, Christian M (2016)'s account must be terminated immediately. AdamDeanHall (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Termination is a stretch. The appropriate action is to block him from ever editing (including talk pages and user pages) on Wikiquote (and only Wikiquote, since this is the only Wikimedia site where he does any damage) ever again. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why... all of us here at Wikiquote. The administrators, bureaucrats and editors! Who'd you expect? AdamDeanHall (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of to whom Christian M. (2016) is very annoying, that does not change the fact that his excessive, unnecessary emphasis to quotes and his drama-queen edits to his own page make for a highly-problematic editor. DawgDeputy (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(AN stalker) It looks to me like an editing dispute between vast corrections and differences of the article, either adding or removing. I don't see any major problems with either of the reverted edits. Neither is handling it very well - I'd suggest a check over of the added/changed material instead of waging an edit war over it. Although, I might add User:Eaglestorm, you shouldn't revert every edit an editor you oppose makes, i.e. adding back a redlink they corrected dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 23:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back because of his hypocrisy. if its to be fixed, better to be done by anybody else other than him.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dibby's point stands. Why can't we be allies for each other than the argument we're in right now, and my recent edits are considered better than my actions from how I've got started for this site --Christian M. (2016) 20:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eaglestorm: Disputes on content should always focus on content rather than contributor (as said by an editor last year on a similar dispute). If a contributor who has made controversial edits to an article later clearly helps improve the article, in this case fixing a redlink, it should not be reverted based on the contributor's other edits to the article. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 01:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A few small improvements do not erase a long history of huge controversial edits and rule violations. Plus, in some of his edits, such as this recent one, in trying to improve some quotes, he made controversial changes to others. DawgDeputy (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spare us that alliance delusions you've been hawking - YOU WILL ROT AND DIE FIRST before I become one of yours! oh and congratulations on coming here to defend yourself, although your big boy pants is not big enough, from what I've seen. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eaglestorm: I recommend keeping the color commentary to yourself and focus on giving facts. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of language is inappropriate and if I see inflammatory and uncivil language from you again, I'll block you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah not the first time you threw your weight around in my face, nicht wahr? please. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin here because the community trusts my judgement. They trust my judgement because I'm willing to enforce basic civility. If you refuse to abide by it, then you will not participate here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now wanted to explain Edgar's defeat from The Aristocats for Disney's last words, and corrected a typo in Syndrome's last words, although Dawg reverted back, and deemed it "not right to remove necessary emphasis". Also, I've wanted to remove a majority of misspelled dialogues for their corrections in Ice Age: Collision Course, yet they were reverted once more, but I don't find them controversial. It's not offending, but I feel Dawg wants me to leave after the edit-war we and Eaglestorm were in - --Christian M. (2016) 18:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never call me anything but DawgDeputy, explaining Edgar's defeat is unnecessary, and as for "not right to remove necessary emphasis" you got the wrong edit. Your defense does not undo a lifetime of wrongdoings that you should not have done in the first place. You started the edit wars with your excessive unnecessary emphasis. We try to end them by undoing them. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm never lying again." so says in one of his rather dramatic edit summaries. Sorry kid, that on and off act has gone on long enough. You come back despite theatrics about leaving, so there's really nothing more to be believed about you. It's probably best you concentrate on finishing school instead of wasting everyone's time here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────┘
@Christian M. (2016), DawgDeputy, Eaglestorm, Koavf: The edits being discussed really don't seem like that big of an issue to say these things to other users. To focus on content, rather on 'who reverted who', I believe that emphasis should be included in characters where necessary, i.e. when a character is screaming/shouting, put it in caps. I don't think that formatting (e.g. bold/italics) should be used for emphasis though Edit: Formatting for emphasis seems to be on lots of articles already, so I'll give it a pass, just avoid overusing it. 04:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC), might do a re-read of WQ:MOS when I get some time. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 00:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the problem is when that other guy tries to make unnecessary emphasis with his crayon edits. He's been warned against it and has only shown pigheadedness, still a liar and a sockpuppet operator. Two strikes --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through Christian's contributions and didn't really find anything indicating malintent; the edits are not unhelpful, no? They still help build a compendium of quotes? I don't see a problem with it. What part makes Christian a liar? He's certainly not a vandal (as was accused earlier, although I couldn't find any edits that back this up) dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 04:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DawgDeputy already outlined it all. as for being a liar, he's made drama-queen edits about leaving the project and oftentimes backflippig, inaddition to all the unnecessary edits that just muck everything. That's more than enough to sap whatever patience and AGF should be given on him. Especially when you're a sockpuppeteer. --Eaglestorm (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I've contributed edits for Simba's Pride, Rise of Skywalker, The Last Jedi, Endgame, and Beauty and the Beast to remove unnecessary and problematic emphasized exclamation points, as well as lowercasing quotations in dialogues, but DawgDeputy and Eaglestorm reverted them back. They've even called me a "lying hypocrite", for believing I've vandalized pages again. They should never call me a liar/hypocrite, or ask me to leave. They wanted me to go again, but I can't give up for the site, and it doesn't mean I was lying. There's a little more I need to learn in needing to not edit war again. If you understand my reason, then talk to them on my decision for needing a break when it comes for me --Christian M. (2016) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They should never call me a liar/hypocrite, or ask me to leave. They wanted me to go again, but I can't give up for the site, and it doesn't mean I was lying." - this is another big case of gaslighting and trying to paint oneself as the victim when you have been caught in a lie many times. There's really nothing to be believed about you anymore, is there? --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is anything you must believe me in. You must trust my edits for cleaning up pages, removing typos, etc., even if you might find it useless, hypocritical, or problematical. As a different person, no vandalizer or liar; just an ally --Christian M. (2016) 2:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
First, the term is called a vandal, not "vandalizer". Second, you are like a broken record. Third, you always lie. Fourth, by trying to clean up, you like to hide blatant vandalism within your edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spare us the "you must..." dramaticism. I've seen that kind of behavior in so many people who have tried to trick me, and they're lesser people for it. Sadly, with all the nonsense edits you're making, you're on that list. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the Administrators (DawgDeputy and Eaglestorm)...this is Christian M.'s dad...I'm writing to you because I have been working with Christian to help in his understanding of what can and can't be edited and to follow the rules on the site. In case you don't know, Christian has autism and is trying his best do things the correct way. He may not always be able to explain perfectly or put in to words things to you.... that can come across as if he's lying/being dramatic, etc. Please understand that when he interprets dialogues, he's just trying to get it right and not trying to cause problems. That being said, he needs to learn and follow the rules as well. Many with autism notice/interpret minor details that most of us do not even notice, so what seems unneccessary to the admin, seems very important to Christian. He has contributed thousands of edits and absolutely loves being part of this platform! I've wanted him to handle all of this on his own in the past so he learns to work together with others, follow the rules of the site, and contribute as well. That's all he wants to do. I'm asking that you continue to help him when needed and understand some of the challenges he faces, and to be patient as you have.....I will stay involved more when issues come up to help as well. Thanks for your help and understanding. John M. --Christian M. (2016) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, I can't make heads or tails of what you just said, especially when I and another editor are labelled as something they're not. How are we to be sure that the latest response is legit and not the work of somebody trying to pose as another editor? Nice try, first it was running a sockpuppet account then you now pull off an ersatz meatpuppetry thing through the intervention of a "father" and using supposed mental illness for some sympathy fit? --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was legit, mental illnesses are not a defense to blatant vandalism/problematic edits or adding extra quotes by exceeding the Wikiquote's limitation on quotes, and Christian M. (2016) knew perfectly well what he was doing. DawgDeputy (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have no understanding of what Autism is about, the challenges that are faced, and the fact that you are saying, "Nice try", "meat puppetry", etc....Are you serious? I am Christian's father and am trying to help him correct the mistakes he made and do a better job of understanding Wikiquote's limitation on quotes. Have some compassion man and don't attack my son who is wanting to do things right and has made some mistakes. I have let him handle this himself from the beginning so he learns how to deal with situations, how to admit if he makes mistakes, and correct what's wrong. As an administrator, how is it you can't make heads or tails of my message? To think that as an administrator you think this is about sympathy and mental illness is just plain wrong. Autism just means my son and millions like him learn a different way than the average kid....I don't want sympathy for my son....but I would hope you could have some compassion for another human being that is trying to contribute. If he's done things wrong, he needs to correct those things and move forward and that's where I'm trying to now help. If you took the time to understand/learn about autism at all, you would know how the tiniest details are noticed and important to them....pretty simple really. So if that needs to stop, Christian needs to stop doing that, period...especially if that's the rules. This isn't a "supposed father intervention using a supposed mental illness". Just trying to help make something right. --Christian M. (2016) 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"no understanding of what Autism is about"? hah, I have some traits that could have seen me diagnosed with it when I was a kid (and thankfully never concluded as such), so stop pulling our legs. If you are his pops at the helm of that editor's account, well, that's quite the meatpuppet for you. And please know who you're talking to, what with you again falsely identifying people with something they don't have. "So if that needs to stop, Christian needs to stop doing that, period." unless it really is the account owner talking in the third person, he ought to stop trying to be so pigheaded about the edits he makes, forcing his way when it clearly doesn't work, lying about exiting the site only to come back, and making desperation plays about calling people to be his ally, to the point of even demanding them to join him in what could be some zany cause of his! Please don't lecture me on compassion when it's you/his own behavior that's rubbing people the wrong way. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, it does not matter whether or not the one posting these feeble pleas for clemency really is Christian M.'s father, nor if he really is autistic. He knew what he was doing was wrong, yet he continued to act on his wrongdoings. A mental disorder is not an excuse for persistent problematic edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more inclined to think this father bit is some April Fools' joke that has gone too long. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joke or not, the father message claims we are administrators. We are not administrators. We are just highly-trusted editors trying to fight against problematic edits/editors, and Christian M. is highly problematic. Seriously, what difference does it make whether or not it was a joke? There is no excuse for his problematic edits. DawgDeputy (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that I agree. That's what I meant by "falsely identifying people with something they don't have." There's no longer AGF-worthy material from him and to bring in someone who may or not be a loved one is just pushing it and trying to add another excuse to his edits. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? I... I really don't get this thread. Why is adding emphasis to movie quotes vandalism? I've been seeing a trend of editors accusing him of pretty strong actions that I haven't been able to find a trace of, and going through Christian's contributions doesn't bring up anything that would justify an addition to AN about him, much less a +2500-word long flame war. To me, this is just a lame edit war that got blown out of proportion, and if anyone can convince me otherwise, please put some diffs down on the table as well. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 05:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My whole idea of adding emphasis including sizing exclamations is so that the reader understands how the speaker is vocalizing his lines. Why is this considered vandalism? Also, to be able to picture in your mind, how a quote is being spoke is done through these sizing exclamations and expanding dialogues for a scene to make sense. That way, the reader can visualize how lines are being portrayed in a film --Christian M. (2016) 02:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is vandalism/problematic because it is absolutely unwarranted and going overboard. We have to go by what the form of media gives, not by the mind. Adding unnecessary emphasis may end up sending the wrong message to those that never saw the form of media. It has to stop. DawgDeputy (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally adding bold and italics to quotes. It's not even changing the words themselves. I don't get the fuss? I'm 100% confident these edits aren't vandalism in the slightest. This is going to near-harassment levels, and it doesn't need to continue further. These edits don't deserve to be reverted and they are often mixed in with helpful edits, most of which above editors just revert anyway, unintentionally harming Wikiquote. I think you should leave Christian alone. dibbydib⌐■_■ (barate me) 08:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are not necessarily vandalism, but they are unnecessary, and his insistence to emphasize those quotes is highly problematic (when I first filed this report, I distinctly stated his edits were problematic, not full vandalism (@Eaglestorm:, I will advise you not to go so far as to call them vandalism; that hinders the case)). And he has done more than unnecessarily emphasize quotes and hide them within helpful edits (which makes it difficult for editors, which is why they resort to undoing the whole edit rather than go through so much time and effort over removing just the problems with his edits). And he does more than just add unnecessary emphasis. Like I said earlier, he broke the rules on quote limitations at least twice. DawgDeputy (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with dibbydib, those objecting seem to exhibit a behavior that is called "ownership" and "wikilawyering" at Wikipedia. Everyone needs to accept that Wikiquote is the work of a community and be more tolerant of what they consider to be imperfections. (By the way, WQ:LOQ is a proposal. There is no rule on quote limitations.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Well it's a rather half-baked one. and we've been working on copyright cleanup for almost 13 YEARS this summer! Jeez! As for these accusations of doing a WQ version of WP:OWN, that's far off. there are no objections to other people working on articles, but its people like Christian who muddle up with unnecessary additions. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now hes out on supposed copyvio culling when an article is within LOQ. He's just off the deep end now. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiquote:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive/036&oldid=3137014"