Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/036

From Wikiquote
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Harassment, Edit warring and copyright violations by Rupert loup[edit]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
As a defense witness. There is no rule against it. DawgDeputy (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pratap Pandit[edit]

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

Constantly harasses users such as Rupert loup and myself, and refuses to admit defeat. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Dibbydib says otherwise. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
None of your evidence is sufficient, nor was it irrefutable. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You always do the same thing. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You are not an administrator, so you cannot prove that the evidence we provided is insufficient. DawgDeputy (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  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)
@GreenMeansGo: I trimmed the content to the estential. Rupert Loup 20:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
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)

Help[edit]

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)

Edit warring...[edit]

Between the following IPs:

96.238.130.65 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
108.17.71.32 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
190.72.168.122 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

@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)
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)

I think that you are having a problem...[edit]

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

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

2600:6C4A:580:2BB8:216:44FF:FECD:133D (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
47.35.121.229 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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

User:დამოკიდებულება[edit]

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)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)
  • Using polemic and unpopular quotes Propaganda Sites"
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)
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)
  • Note Thankfully administrator GMG has removed the copyright violations from "2020 coronavirus pandemic in India over which this User:დამოკიდებულება was edit warring on the page. In the edit summary GMG had said, " This reprints literally the entire article word-for-word. So yes, this is a copyright violation. Please do not restore. " GMG's statement confirms that I was right in calling it out as COPYVIO and removing it.- --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts to edit same articles[edit]

  1. Nwalker3 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  2. Jedi3 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) Talk Archive 1, 2 3, 4 (Blocked thrice and interaction banned in April 2018)
  3. Luke Jedi Skywalker (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) started on 17 May 2018 while ban was still in place
  4. ΞΔΞ (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  5. დამოკიდებულება (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  6. დამოკიდებუილება2 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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)
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)
As in a CheckUser? Dibbysock (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
There was no sockpuppet investigation concerning those users. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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)TCM 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ok. Also all socks use the same authors and sources on similar topics:
  • Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu mind - [40] [41] [42] [43]
  • The case of anti-muslim political propaganda on Wikiquote was raised here (account: ΞΔΞ is mentioned)
  • Kishori Saran Lal, The Muslim Slave System in Medieval India - [44] [45] [46].
  • Sita Ram Goel, The Calcutta Quran Petition - [47] [48] [49]
  • Robert Spencer, The history of Jihad: From Muhammad to ISIS - [50] [51]
  • Bharatvani.org - [52] [53] [54] [55] --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The m:Steward found the accounts stale, and has asked for the the behavior changes to be discussed here. So requesting the admins to take a look at this disruption. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Quoting what @Xsaorapa: mentioned in the thread below. "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."
  • 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.
  • To hide his disruption, he keeps creating new account every few months, and he is planning to abandon დამოკიდებულება and start a new one now. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Block evasion by Pratap_Pandit[edit]

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

Pratap Pandit (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

  • At least 2 admins have on this page asked Dibbydib and others 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.
  • I have already raised this issue on his talk page but he seems to be determined to simply would not shut up talking about Wikipedia here.  In his recent comments he repeated the same thing for eleventh time. 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. I guess something else needs to be done to make this clear to him and make him stop.--Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Continued Harassment, hounding and stalking by Pratap Pandit[edit]

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

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)

: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)

@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)
Still not clear what the question is. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

POVs, closure, and consensus[edit]

@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)

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)
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)
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 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)
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)
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 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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

Dibbydib (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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?[edit]

[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)

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

Expired VfDs[edit]

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)

Yes check.svgY 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)

Suppress please[edit]

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

@Drmies: stewards have done so. Praxidicae (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
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)

Revdel/deletion requests[edit]

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?

Yes check.svgY Done Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
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)TCM 06:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

These ones:

And these edit summaries:

Yes check.svgY DoneJustin (koavf)TCM 18:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Problematic IP (likely a sockpuppet...)[edit]

2601:240:4180:6A50:6940:A401:458B:539C (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log). Same MO, same editing patterns, etc. I request immediate action be taken against it. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Ugh. Again? Yes check.svgY Done. Thanks, DD. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
And now yet another sockpuppet is afoot:
2601:240:4180:6A50:4939:AA83:4CA2:E97D‎ (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)
Yes check.svgY Done Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Xsaorapa's abusive sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry[edit]

Xsaorapa (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • Yes check.svgY 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)TCM 02:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

173.77.215.131[edit]

173.77.215.131 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)

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

@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)
Yes check.svgY Done by me awhile ago but I didn't close the loop here. Thanks, DawgDeputy. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

User:დამოკიდებულება[edit]

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)

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)

@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)
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)
@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)
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)
  • Using polemic and unpopular quotes Propaganda Sites"
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)
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)
  • Note Thankfully administrator GMG has removed the copyright violations from "2020 coronavirus pandemic in India over which this User:დამოკიდებულება was edit warring on the page. In the edit summary GMG had said, " This reprints literally the entire article word-for-word. So yes, this is a copyright violation. Please do not restore. " GMG's statement confirms that I was right in calling it out as COPYVIO and removing it.- --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Using multiple accounts to edit same articles[edit]

  1. Nwalker3 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  2. Jedi3 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) Talk Archive 1, 2 3, 4 (Blocked thrice and interaction banned in April 2018)
  3. Luke Jedi Skywalker (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log) started on 17 May 2018 while ban was still in place
  4. ΞΔΞ (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  5. დამოკიდებულება (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
  6. დამოკიდებუილება2 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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)
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)
As in a CheckUser? Dibbysock (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
There was no sockpuppet investigation concerning those users. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

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)TCM 21:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

ok. Also all socks use the same authors and sources on similar topics:
  • The m:Steward found the accounts stale, and has asked for the the behavior changes to be discussed here. So requesting the admins to take a look at this disruption. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Quoting what @Xsaorapa: mentioned in the thread below. "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."
  • 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.
  • To hide his disruption, he keeps creating new account every few months, and he is planning to abandon დამოკიდებულება and start a new one now. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This needs to be considered in light of new evidence below. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

All indefinitely blocked. The account User:დამოკიდებულება has talk page access to explain himself. Very compelling evidence of widespread sockpuppetry. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

OTRS complaint on copyright of several Wikiquote pages[edit]

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)

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)

It is obvious that this sender is none other than Xsaorapa (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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)

დამოკიდებულება (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

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)
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)
Dibbydib, I didn't check this page and missed your comment. Please see my comment here. --დამოკიდებულება (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)TCM 07:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

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)


Yes check.svgY 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)

@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)

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)
@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)TCM 02:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@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)TCM 02:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • 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)
  • 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)TCM 03:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Analog computer virvs[edit]

Analog computer virvs (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

Yes check.svgY 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)TCM 01:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, there are the following accounts it used before:
67.百七十.192.231 (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
WikiLumber (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock log)
2603:3024:1DDE:0:94D8:344:5456:13EF (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)
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)
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)

Dibbydib continues violating copyright licensing requirements of attribution despite being asked to not do it[edit]

Dibbydib (talkcontribscentralauthpage movesblock userblock 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)

X mark.svgN 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)TCM 02:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)TCM 07:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
  • 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)

Problematic IPs[edit]

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)