Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

← Community page

Administrators' noticeboard

Archives (current) →

This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help. Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page. Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 1,403,179 No. of articles = 935,091 No. of files = 8,424 No. of edits = 4,458,240 No. of pages in Main = 283,090 No. of pages in Page: = 857,260 No. validated in Page: = 117,388 No. proofread in Page: = 190,170 No. not proofread in Page: = 481,737 No. problematic in Page: = 11,434 No. of validated works = 1,024 No. of proofread only works = 624 No. of pages in Main  with transclusions = 71,690 % transcluded pages in Main = 25.32 Σ pages in Main  No. of users = 757,123 No. of active users = 327 No. of group:autopatrolled = 317 No. in group:sysop = 38 No. in group:bureaucrat = 3 No. in group:bot = 22 Statistics User preference statistics

Checkuser notification

• Wikisource:CheckUser policy

Log

Users	Results
Two established users (one long serving, one not) undertaking speed validation	I was concerned about a sudden influx of validation that was taking place at an accelerated rate, and was wanting to see whether we had bots involved by checking user agents. Nothing evident there, and first blush of the other data just illustrated two disparate users and reinforced other existing information. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
(addendum to above) third established user	geolocation to be able to present case information
general note about running increased number of checks	a note to say that the whole of WMF wikis have been awash with spambots; vigilance and timely response has kept the problem controlled, however, it has led to a sizeable xwiki response. (~2.5k accounts locked so far in April.) We get a high hit for spambots, but we are not the worst, and we have an excellent responsiveness. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 83.21.0.0/16

We have had a plethora of spambots creating accounts through the range 83.21.0.0/16. As we look to only have one real account created in that range in the past three months, and zero edits, I have blocked the range, anonymous only. This will inhibit account creation, but not stop any user editing under an account. All the spambots in that range have been locked by steward action. Anonymous users have been directed to email if they are affected. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 198.50.128.0/17

Spambots from 198.50.128.0/17, so I have put in place a soft block in place locally, which should be sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 188.26.32.0/19

Spambots from 188.26.32.0/19 (IP range from a Romanian SOHO provider), and as it is a dynamic provider and we have zero contributions from real people, I have hard blocked the range for the medium term, in the hope that the provider will give a damn and fix their problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Another range similarly abused. 188.27.64.0/18 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 64.31.0.0/18

Spambots from 64.31.0.0/18 (Limestone Networks) seem to have a focus for us, but not for the general broader WMF wikis, so I have softblocked the range locally. For spambots using some of the modern spam software it is not unusual for a spammer to focus on a certain set of services. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 58.22.0.0/16

Spambots from 58.22.0.0/16 (zh network range), just spam, no editors. Soft block for 12 months. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests

Bot Confirmation

The first semi annual discussion has just began at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bot_Confirmation_January_2013, As a new process dependent on many old habits, it is rather top heavy on the housekeeping side. When the time comes to close the discussions and make any required account changes (Bureaucrat duty): I will take post closure housekeeping responsibility: archiving the discussions (to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives), updating Wikisource:Bots/List and changes to {{bot}} if required on the bot user page. Jeepday (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks ready to close. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Username change

I would like my username changed from Readopedia to Energybender. Thanks. Readopedia (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The name Energybender already exists. Did you create this? It was created today as well.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

recommend close Not done as they are the same user, and this account has been locked by request by a steward. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Username change

I would like my username changed from Vugar 1981 to NKOzi. Thanks. --Vugar 1981 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 08:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Username change

I would like my username changed from Evzob to GeoEvan. I have already made this change on English Wikipedia, and am in the process on Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks! Evzob (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! GeoEvan (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Username change

Hi. I would also like my username changed, from "Daniel Tomé" to "DanielTom". I requested the same change in other wikis (it has already been completed at Wikiquote and Wikipedia). "DanielTom" is the name I use online since 2007. Thanks. ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 11:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Username change request (BCG999 (SUL) → RandomDSdevel (SUL))

Hey, could somebody please change my username as requested above to reflect a series of username changes that I have recently begun requesting across the WMF wikis, starting with a successful request at Wikipedia, because of how my old username contains my initials?
Thanks in advance,
BCG999 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 00:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! — RandomDSdevel (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for information

Would one of the 'crats please assist stewards by adding local information to m:Rename practices. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if it is inaccurate or incomplete. Hesperian 10:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Username change

From 2004 or so I was active on Wikisource,and even ended as an Administrator' but after a number of years let it lapsed. I was known as User: Apwoolrich, which I also use on Wikipedia. On trying to log back in I find I can't recall my password, and on requesting a new one had no reply, probably because I have changed my email account. I've just signed up as Apwoolrich2 so I can use Wikesource. In order to access my previous contributions and to keep things tidy, can this be changed to my previous username? Thank you. Apwoolrich2 (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not possible, sorry; we can't merge accounts. If you are able to prove your identity in some way (for example if you had a user committed identity on your previous account) then a developer might be prepared to issue you a new password. Short of that, there is no way for you to recover access. Hesperian 12:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway. Apwoolrich2 (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Other

Blocked bot manages to edit

Per Special:Contributions/Alexbot the bot has an indefinite block, since 5 November 2007. But made two edits in 2010. Any idea how that is possible? Jeepday (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pure speculation but it may have to do with having a global bot flag. I just reviewed the blocks from Oct 2006 to July 2007 and I didn't see another example of this. Not that a negative result can prove anything. I am going to file a bug.--BirgitteSB 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

bugzilla:43572--BirgitteSB 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot made those edits on another wiki where it wasn't blocked, and GeoSwan subsequently imported them. Hesperian 05:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit-protected request

Please edit the protected page Template:Main Page header adding the following line before the sandbox link:

* [[Wikisource:News|News]]

See this thread on the Scriptorium. Thanks for helping.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Done , though I think it rates above sandbox

bad icon

This icon reminds me of W.W.II photos of Hitler but without his moustache. —Maury (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can use this other: --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The icon is the icon, it is neither good nor bad. If you don't like it, free not to use it. Any connotations are yours. Whole heap of smilies from which for you to choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Icons can have different meanings and partly, or entirely, that is also why each has a name by whomever makes them. My statement and Erasmo's statement were about icons and not meant to offend you. They are simply our opinions like anyone elses opinions on _icons_. You say, "Any connotations are yours", and that's fine with me. There must be thousands by now because they are not something new. I view them as amusing. e.g. —Maury (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Block request for Terry2012

• Terry2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL)

This is a non-sul account being used to spam cross-wiki (see this overview). Please consider blocking it. Mathonius (talk) 02:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The user has made no edits on any project since July. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Done looks significantly problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. This user actually spammed on beta.wikiversity today (see betawikiversity:User:Terry2012) and on wikinews in January (see n:User:Terry2012). Mathonius (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hi, I am part of a group that is interested in Malaysian government documents.

We would like to contribute Malaysian government documents to Portal:Malaysia. At the same time we would also like to then link the pages to an external website that would discuss said documents. Would that violate any policies/rules? (Azfar)(talk) 8:03 AM January 22, 2013 (UTC)

I placed a welcome template on your talk page, that will give you a path to many of the questions you will have. In short, if the works are in English (Malaysian being the official language of Malaysia) where the works and/or the translations of the work meet Wikisource:Copyright policy they can be here. I am not sure if there is a Malaysian Wikisource but if there is you would find it here. There is no restriction to incoming links. Questions of copyright are discussed at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Let us know if you have any other questions, JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than a blanket yes, I personally don't have an issue with minimal linking of relevant material on or off site, though there is always some qualification of comment, and wanting to see what is specifically being suggested …

• If you have many Malaysian gov docs to bring to enWS, you might find that setting up a project (Wikisource:WikiProjects) would be of value to coordinate the works, the volunteers and the standardised formatting (plus a place to link to the discussion point). To note that while we love all the more documents here, we would allow contextual links to external works that fit within the scope.
• Individual documents can have {{edition}} added to the notes field. This directs people to the talk page, and I would think that there is scope from the talk page to link to a specific document offwiki if it is relevant.
• Our portal namespace has this scope, as it is meant to support the subject matter in the true sense of a library, obviously not to be abused. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Made TemplatePreloader load as default

Whether to load TemplatePreloader.js by default has been a long discussion argument, and from memory, I haven't heard that we shouldn't, so I did. That I am a little over fixing some of the basics when we can have it done for us may have given some impetus. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Last time we did this we saw a marked increase in mainspace creations with a header only. (See /Archives/2011#Is is just me or). Further discussion was in WS:Scriptorium/Archives/2012-02#Changed default to ON for Gadget Header preloader. We are again seeing this. Many of them are from redlink clicking with a few being search terms. As a possible way forward, is it feasible (and desirable) to have the default set only for logged-in users? Also, where did Billinghurst's filter for pages with a header only get to? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. I've deleted dozens of these already. It was a bad idea back then & is a bad idea now. Folks who are not familar with WS have no real appreciation for the preloader and folks who are regulars are surely able to turn it on themselves.

And I don't believe there ever was a filter that just dealt with header only pages. IMHO, we've been too nice about this for far too long (thousands of pages have been marked headerless for example). If we decide to go the filter route - it should stop just being a warning and outright disallow page creation if no header is present. What's the worst that happens? Somebody's copy & paste will need to be re-done? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We would have to exempt the main page, and presumably some others too. There are a few pages that legitimately should not have a header. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Page creation" means those existing pages wouldn't be affected by a filter wouldn't it? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just a potential problem. I'm not sure if they will overlap or not. On the few times I've edited the main page I've received warnings about the lack of a header. If the message is connected to the means of no-header detection, it might cause problems with editing pages too. Another slim but possible issue: Will the "magic header" built into ProofreadPage be detected as a header? This depends on the stage during page creation at which the computer checks for a header; there is none in the initial wikitext but one will be transcluded in the final page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have turned it back off. To ABM, it should not be flagging Main Page as to me it is coded to ignore Main Page. If that is a problem then please go and set it off, and we can look at the filter log to see what the filter is missing.

Part of my issue is that there are people not using a modern {{header}}. I will look to another possibility. And I do not think that a complete disallow if it headerless is reasonable. It slams the door in people's faces, and that discourages editors, and that is not what we want. This should be about information and education, not about regulation.

Is having a brightly-coloured button labelled "click here to insert header template" in the relevant namespaces a possibility? It could have some explanatory text that we expect a header with all mainspace/author/portal pages.

It would also be nice if it was available on pages without a header so that those us doing cleanup don't have to try to remember all the field names in the headers. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I have set up an editnotice that has the capacity to do this. Text to edit is in Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Main. I will work through the remaining relevant namespaces (including User), and a parent page for them at WS:Editnotice copying what is in place at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Addendum. It adds Template:Header/preload which I have trimmed back to the basics, though if you look at its history there were extra parameters. We could have something that also adds them all, however, I think that it may be a little daunting. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• new issues with this approach - see Wikisource:Scriptorium#Compulsory_header -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  That weirdly was just {{DNBset}} which will have nothing to do with the preloaded version; the variants were unaffected. I have had someone looking at it, on our behalf, unidentified at this time. Anyway, I am hoping that the Editnotices are more to your liking. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  OK. While that might have been the case at that point in time & is [being] resolved is good to know, I think it also points to a larger issue of late that doessn't neccessarily include this "change" at all, but....

┌────────────────┘
Recent reversions/updates to the wmf code has "changed" the manner or order of the way our site loads [or renders?] based on code defaults & before any user selected options or preferences are sought & then applied. So every time something is added or deleted to the universal defaults, we run a chance of realizing/introducing new glitches into an already bi-weekly, evolving load/load order, un-tested refinement process.

I know some you have heard or seen customizations once thought as standard or normal suddenly deviate or stop working altogether in the past month or so - custom toolbar buttons being just one example. You can add me to that list btw - I'm having trouble inserting simple characters or symbols from the edit menus without losing cursor focus never mind working custom buttons! Still, its not everybody being affected or at least not all at the same time. Some troubleshooting might help narrow the item or items in conflict that we have domain over versus the changes every other week that we have little control over.

In light of this, I'd prefer if we selected to load less by default and more by individual choice or at least by proactive consensus for any future changes to better identify/resolve/eliminate issues as the wmf code evolves. I'm only suggesting here - not a formal proposal & done only to solicit feedback. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond the one abuse filter issue, I have seen nothing problematic, nor seen anything reported. If we are having issues, then we need to report them into bugzilla as the expectation that they know that a problem has occurred without being told is ... well! We can utilise the forums requesting an explanation of the issues. Comfortable with the approach that changes are discussed. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Latin Help

Would one of our Latin Language admins like to help with a transwiki Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Observance_of_Certain_Articles_of_28_Edw._1._Artic._sup._Cart._Act_1309 ? Jeepday (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems it is not Latin, latest suggestion is French.Jeepday (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Temporary access is requested

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/June 1872/The Study of Sociology II
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/September 1872/The Study of Sociology III
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/October 1872/The Study of Sociology IV

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/June 1872/The Natural History of Man II
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/July 1872/The Migrations of Men III

The article navigators of the above multipart articles in Volume 1 of PSM need to be modified. Can I have temporary access (for an hour or so), to perform the necessary changes? — Ineuw talk 00:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection downgraded. Go for it. Hesperian 00:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — Ineuw talk 00:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The FT protections presumably should have only been temporary anyway. We don't suffer enough vandalism to be protecting the vast majority of the works. These days it would seem that it should be restricted prime pages, featured pages (while featured) prime templates, and where they intrude into the Mediawiki: interface. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. I completed the necessary modifications. I also assumed that they won't be locked forever, but wanted to remove these modifications from my PSM "bucket list" before I forgot. :-) — Ineuw talk 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I only downgraded to autoprotected. Feel free to downgrade to unprotected if you think it best. Hesperian 01:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hesperian, assuming that your comment was intended for me, I am a supporter of autoprotection which I assume it means that only registered users can edit.— Ineuw talk 03:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my message was intended for billinghurst and any other admins who might come along, because only they can alter protection level. Yes, autoprotected means only registered users can edit, and I am fine with it staying at that level. Hesperian 03:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

User name change is a loss ?

When people change their user name (I saw many requests tonight) don't they lose all of their edits and basically start all over on another user page? Thank you, —Maury (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Consider it a move for a user. It is a restricted activity as accounts are generally universal to WMF wikis. sDrewth shudders at the mayhem if people moved their own accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Further information is at mw:Extension:Renameuser. Every WMF project has this extension installed. Hesperian 07:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war on-going here (and other works). Wouldn't it be better to protect the pages until the copyvio issue is sorted out? What is the procedure?--Mpaa (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that it would be to give them a cuddle on their talk page. Let them feel wanted, and reassure them that we will look and do what we can to have an equitable process. The user's talk page looks snippy, and they may be willing to assign copyright via CC, at this stage it looks as if we are slamming fingers in a door, just not sure whose. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that the conversation at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#At_Bukovyna has a link to w:User_talk:VernoWhitney#Hi.2C_Mr._Whitney.2C_please_allow_my_publishing, where cuddling is occuring, and that until now I was assuming that the IP and the named user where the same person. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OK. Fine with me.--Mpaa (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Left a note at the IP, and reverted all the changes, looks like IP reverted some, and named user reverted others. Still suspect they are the same person. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)

Just seen these come up at RC. From the messages left at User talk:George Orwell III and User talk:Mike Rosoft I am sure that the IP is the same person as the user. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Servers in Florida & Law

I watched the discussion at Wikipedia develop and it now has a solution there. In essence they had a rule, that named the US state of Florida as defining district for maters of law. I am not sure if we have any similar, I looked around but nothing jumped out at me. Anyway the "official" decision per Mdennis (WMF) [1] is to use "under US law", without specifying a state. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting autopatrolled user right

Hello. I have been editing several works over the past few weeks or so, and whilst working on Firemaking Apparatus in the U.S. National Museum, I happened to visit the recent changes page, noticing my edits were taking up a large portion of the unpatrolled edits being made. In a week or so, I will be editing with about the same frequency, and do not wish to cause a lot of backlog. Would it be possible for an administrator to add to my account the autopatroller user right? Thank you. Božidar 14:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not yet—You are still new to enWS and we like to keep an eye on our newer members' work so that we can help out where needed and give guidance around the way we do things. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And don't fuss the autopatrol bit, it is only an indicator, not more, and having them there is not an issue. Generally we want to see a broader cross-namespace understanding, and we are pretty good at just giving it. Truth be known, your Page: ns pages are more likely to be validated as we will visit, so smile on your quiet success. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. And I am glad to know I am of no extra trouble! Božidar 07:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Best way to rollback validations of pages of a single user

What is the best way to do this? These pages belong to the same index. ResScholar (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Source file must be fixed before proofreading

I need some feedback on what exactly this status entails for the Index: namespace. I figured best open it up for discussion here and then move it to WS:S if the results drastically differs from my understanding....

I've always operated from the point of view that assigning the "Source file must be fixed before proofreading" status to an Index: equated to a structural issue with the source file that prevents...

1. a full and accurate assignment of the work's pagination as published (i.e. not as the work happened to be scanned) via the pagelist tag in the Index: template & done in order to further the ultimate goal of full and accurate transclusion to the mainspace;

Basically, all that means is that there are extraneous, duplicate or missing pages in the current source file. Any one of those conditions prevents the smooth and uninterrupted assignment of the original pagination (paper pages' sequence or numbering) to the existing source file's Page: positioning (DjVu or PDF page-position) - which ultimately facilitates the resulting accuracy of the transcription as well as the ease of it's final transclusion.

At the same time, things like cut-off overflows of content or blurred/missing content within an existing source file page-position are not structural issues but, imho, incidental issues. Per-page problems like those mentioned do not affect the ability to properly reflect or present a work as originally published though they do effect the quality of our efforts in obtaining that as-close-as-possible finished reflection or presentation of the work. These per-page problems should have been detected and resolved in the source file prior to upload and Index: creation but that has not been the norm around here lately (if ever). Still, we have the ability to mark such individual "problem" pages as 'Problematic' as well as the ability to seek a resolution via the Talkpages, etc.

So before I go any further down the path on what to do when... incidental issues are being peddled as structural ones, I'd like to see if you folks are first of like-mind to the above or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

George you are the undisputed champion of untangling these messes, and I can probably count the number of works I have moved from paper or scan to an index and validation with one finger (or less). So how could these problems be "detected and resolved in the source file prior to upload and Index"? I am completely with you in spirit, but for success we have to have a simple and understandable process for those with my skill set or less. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

For starters - we have to start stressing that while IA is frequently "better" than GoogleBooks & the like when it comes to selecting a file & format to upload to Commons and to transcribe here on en.WS; they are not to be assumed to be without fault. The easiest way to see if something odd might be present with any of the files hosted on IA is to check the full-file directory (the HTTPS link at the bottom of the left-hand file list) for some typical markers.

First, one must understand that 98% or more of the works that IA hosts & processes originate as a .PDF file upload - uploading anything else to IA won't be automatically derived into any of the other file types that we might want to snatch for ourselves. So if the timestamp of the .PDF file differs by as little as 12 to 18 hours from the other file's in that directory, it could mean the DjVu file listed there is not the optimal DjVu file for use here.

There is no rule-of-thumb born from my travels on IA however, but if you see a .DjVu from 2007 and a PDF from 2011 listed in the full-file directory, common sense (that's 4 years apart!! at least 2 cycles of newer software could have been used between the two files!!!) should tell you that there is some nuance or difference between the two - and that could be an indicator that the original processing, much like the blind setup of an Index: done here on en.WS without checking for completeness and quality first, has caused the original uploader to attempt to fix his upload some point in time after that .DjVu was created... and that .DjVu should viewed with some measure of skepticism before becoming a candidate for usage here is all that I'm trying to get across with this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(ditto) As I see it, things that make it a PITA to fix or authenticate. So to add to your list, if we thought a work was a patch construct, ie. not of the same edition, then we may ask for a hold on transcription while decisions are made. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mehhh - that's more about no other status available that better mirrors the issue of 'cease & desist per some discussion' taking place first rather than solidly determining that a structural issue exists..... but I agree with you in spirit on that point without listing it for clarity's sake.

Actually, there is currently a File: status-ed this way that will needs some discussion on WS:S if & when I get around to it (in short - does a right-to-left language such as Hebrew dictate that we must keep the back-to-front pagination found in the last division of the original book or can we/should we edit the source file to have the pages re-sequenced to the norm for optimal transcription/transclusion?). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry to hijack but as of today we have {{Bad page scan}} for tagging 'incidental' issues. Hesperian 14:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

And today we have George to fix the problem… Not what I would call a fair OR long term, solution. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with that as long as I have the free time and the contributor makes the effort to own the problem and resolve to fix it as well; which brings me to the "reason" I even stopped to ask this in the first place.

In the interim, I see the user guilty of throwing up their hands and "quitting" on several Indexes: he's already gone deep into by recently statusing them "for fixing" now that he's discovered (but not fully vetted to isolate structural vs incidental just yet) that some pages within are "problematic" is also having some speedy-validation/blocking issues on top of this so I probably will let that play out before I formally raise this. Still, my concern here is more about once the list "for fixing" is whittled down into something anybody can address & not just me.

For example, when BWC finds a structural issue & changes a status to "file needs fixing", he owns up to that problem, investigates further to insure there are no other issues and then lists his findings with pointers to possible sources/options all on his own without having to drag it out of him with the usual interrogation I have to do with most other users. This way, when let's say the scan page of 101 is missing from a source file, I already have a place to scrape that page from for proper insertion rather than just inserting a blank place-holder as I normally would. -- He's a partner in the resolution as I believe one should be when changing that status.

On the other hand, I get the impression the other User: in question here thinks that he can just change the status to "file needs fixing" and his hands are washed from having anything to do with his own creations. Admittedly, I could be assuming as much.... but before I find out for sure and go through the usual "is there any cheese at the end of this maze of questions & answers?" routine with him. I want to be sure "we" are clear that incidental issues (& thank you for the addition of {{Bad page scan}} btw ) are not cause for changing an Index's status to "needs file fixing" -- which is primarily reserved for use when structural issues exist -- or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you're talking about me, but whenever I come across works with structural issues, I drive-by tag them as such, without putting any effort at all into repairing or further explicating the problem (I was doing that for incidental issues too, but am now disabused of that misunderstanding). Am I to understand that this is not appreciated? Hesperian 03:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

While I firmly believe paranoia is a healthy thing to have online, you are mistaken to apply it in this case - its not about you (though I do recall that one time we briefly touched on this). Its ShakespeareFan00 et al who has status-ed some works that I believe to be unwarranted.

Regardless... just to re-cap: 1.) don't change an Index's status to "file needs fixing" unless you are sure there is a structural issue with the source file; not when there are incidental issues are found within existing Pages: broken out of the source file. 2.) Please note your findings causing this change somewhere obvious. Beyond that - the file can rot that way until the end of time as far as I'm concerned unless more Pages: get created after that point in time (where more pages equates to compounding the original problem). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Concrete proposal: In MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template, change "Source file must be fixed before proofreading" to "Do not proofread — Source file has faults that impact page numbering." Hesperian 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Do not add any Pages under this Index: - Current source file has issues" works better for me.... though this all could be made much more effective if the status could somehow auto-lock the creation of any Pages found under the Index: to just the Admin level. That way some people (not you... or you. Maybe you.) might learn the differences between impulse editing/uploading (Lord I LOVE this book and I don't care how big a piece a crap it might be at the end of the day!) and thoughtful, value-adding contributions we'd all like to see. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think that there would be some potential to utilise <pagelist>'s empty parameter, but what is the scope for determining the first and last (red link) page? BUT if the file is really that bad, just delete it via WS:PD why retain it? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Beside assuming the typical, library added front &/or back matter plus covers are indeed not as originally published & not part of the "real" page count, the most sure-fire way to identify a structural problem is to validate the offset or offsets calculated in the <pagelist>'s parameters against the book's pagination as scanned.

If the offset is 6 (scan page no. 1 is really DjVu position /6), scan page 101 should be DjVu 106, 201 = 206, 301 = 306, and so on. When it doesn't add up to the believed offset at some point, you just repeat the above using smaller and smaller increments until it does match up again. Then you must determine if the offset is caused by normal inclusion of plates, images, section end page, section title page and similar "fillers" or you'll find skipped or duplicated pages by the gap or repetition of the scanned paged numbering.

I don't know what the empty parameter accomplishes. I can't even recall the last time I saw it use either.

... and just ask the DNB project why one might be forced to "keep" a rotten file instead of deleting it and starting over - even with a possibility of bulk moves to make it happen; A. because hundreds of pages were created in spite of the fact they did not align with the true paginations - only the assumed ones. They never got around to verifying even the most simple of offsets possible - for 63 straight volumes - after the front matter offset was calculated, page 1 thru the index end were Never interrupted by any sort of "filler" page as published, yet we still found instances where the source file itself had less pages then scan page no. 1 start to index last page's end - never mind the settings entered into that Index's pagelist. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The most recent use of the empty parameter is Index:Schlick - Gesammelte Aufsätze (1926 - 1936), 1938.djvu where pages all in German have been so-tagged. Unfortunately, using it and then adding those pages to the Page: namespace results in orphans. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Applying it behaves the same as skipping a range & then creating the Pages: anyway - they become orphans - except the range is displayed on the Index: page (not a clickable link). Its nothing more than a cosmetic place-holder for the page list only - using it doesn't reserve a real (structural) djvu or pdf page position. If I had to insert a missing page into that range, I'd still have to move all the existing pages after it anyway instead just swapping the page marked empty for the previously missing one.

Pretty.... but very helpful in the end resolution. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The empty use is defined at oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage. We can get around orphan page issues, that is a manageable artefact. I will keep silent on other matters, not for here and now. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear about the role of empty here. It is cosmetic at best and is useful to the display of the PageList in the Index: namespace only. Applying it does not affect the structure of a source file in the slightest. Applying it does not void or create any possibilities not already normally found in the Page: namespace as well (clicking on the next arrow from /8 in BWC's example does not take you to the expected /35 according to what is possible to click into from what is found on the Index: page with the use of empty but the usual /9 come next instead). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to the main issue being discussed here, at present Help:Index pages#Parameters tells us to use "source file is incorrect" when "[t]he file for this Index has scan errors such as missing pages, duplicate pages, poor quality scans, pages out of order, etc." The "poor quality scans" clause is possibly why this is happening. Having written this bit, I'm happy to see it removed if that's what's wanted. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch - I've amended the wording to better isolate the issues to just the structural kind. A final revision depending on the outcome of Hesp's proposal would still be needed I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Its obvious now that we've been lumping the operation involving the scanning of printed pages together with the operation of compiling the resulting set of scans into a single source file inadvertently.

The display of a thumbnail of a page that appears blank to us in the Page: namespace may be the result of a scan that was done so poorly that no image was manifested to save to begin with or the image was indeed created but somehow lost during the compiling process that results in a single source file. Either way, the physical (or structural) place-holder exists for that missing content & it is only an incidental (Problematic) issue. At the same time - the optimal end solution in that case would be a structural swap done within the source file of the blank page for one containing the image/content previously lost. The thumbnail would no longer display as a blank. The worst case end solution (and the primary practice applied to date) is to copy and paste the content lost to us by the lack of a scanned imaged to the editable text-area with a note on "where" to find that secondary source. The thumbnail would still appear blank.

On the other hand, the display of the same exact page more than once, no display of an expected page according to the printed page's numbering or pages displayed in anything but the expected contiguous order, are all structural issues. The unordered scenario is resolved through the "swapping" of page-positions around to achieve the proper page progression -- but this is not the same swapping as mention before since that requires a separate stand-alone file not currently found within the structure of the original source file, used to replace one that is already "merged" with others; in the unordered scenario no outside stand-alone file is needed. A truly missing page requires the insertion of a separate stand-alone file in between two existing file; shifting the position of the pages that follow up by +1 for each insertion as a result. When no secondary source can be scrapped to obtain this missing content for insertion - a dummy or blank place-holder of similar dimension is inserted for the time being instead (changing this issue from structural to incidental in the process & allowing for the worst-case option given above). Duplicate pages simply need to be pruned from the original source file by deleting the offending replications as needed. This results in all the files after the point of deletion to shift their positions down by -1 for each instance of deletion made. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Validating speed issue + loss of an editor

On 24 February between 11:27 (UTC) and 17:45 (UTC) 500 pages were validated by User:The Bible in Metre at times at a speed of 4 pages per minute. While investigating this it was noticed that User:ShakespeareFan00 under his legitimate alternate account User:Sfan00 IMG validated 166 pages between 22:15 and 00:17. Unfortunately new user Widux was validating over the same time period and got caught up in the investigation. As a result we have lost a potentially strong editor from the project—see User talk:Widux and User talk:Beeswaxcandle#Guidance please. We also have a PotM work (Index:Vanity Fair 1848.djvu) that is going to have to be completely re-validated.

My reason for posting here is not to apportion blame but to give us an opportunity to review the processes around this event and see if there was anything that we could/should have done differently. One of the things that I can think of is that the Blocking policy wasn't followed in that block notifications weren't placed on the users' talk pages. I'm aware now that I don't do this when blocking vandals. Is there a way that a reminder to template can come up on the blocking screen or do we just need to remember? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that it needs to be completed revalidated, we can search through the validation data and retreat for those contributors that are identified, even probably even look at the touched time on the files between certain dates. So think through what it is you are looking to achieve on a page level. We can pull data via the API.

I am not for or against a templated block notification, but I am clearly to the position that we should always engage in a conversation with before/during/after the judicious, purposeful and thoughtful use of a block for editors that are not clearly vandalising the project. Any editor can be captured to or rejected from the community by the attitude of the person dealing with them, and of that we always need to be mindful; and that principle to me is as important as the blackletters. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Special:Block, principally Mediawiki:blockiptext. There are components that can be customised on the page. The messages are easiest seen at Special:AllMessages and in situ positioning uselang=qqx. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Widux was never blocked. ResScholar (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that continuation of the current block of User:Sfan00 IMG is unproductive and suggest we unblock. He hasn't exactly acknowledged the issue to my satisfaction and I support ResidentScholar's imposition of a block but I think the point of the second block was to clarify the message that "stop validating until we've talked about this" means both "stop validating" and "talk"; both stopping and talking have been effected. Unless SF immediately resumes validation/devalidation, I don't see that actually enforcing a week long block, even if simply by inaction, is a good precedent and actually devalues the block. Lifting the block might actually make it easier to explain the "offenses" to SF by defusing and reducing the incentive to up the drama.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 01:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If his block is long, Sfan has no one but himself to blame. He has yet to explain why he was the middle of three editors editing quickly like he was, and why he entangled his account of his behavior with the first of these three editors. He also introduced other forms of administrative friction, like when he apologized for being careless, but then didn't do anything to mend the damage it was doing to the clarification we were attempting to bring to his behavior, like when he erased and rewrote parts of some of his writing on his user page after Hesperian had responded to it. ResScholar (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Log of blocked users

February 5
Mr. B’s account created.

February 17
Mr. W's account created.

February 23
14:29 – Mr. B requests autopatrol status on the administrative noticeboard.
14:50-15:03 – Mr. B. Speed validates Vanity Fair (about 50 p. in 15 min)
19:45 – Beeswaxcandle tells Mr. B. he can “not yet” have autopatrol status.

February 24 4:45 – Billinghurst tells Mr. B. the patrol indicators are not demeritorious, and that they tend to encourage people to help him to validate his work.
7:15 – Mr. B. replies, mentioning something about being seen as “no extra trouble.”
9:27-9:38 – Mr. B. speed validates 25 p. in 11 min
9:55-10:56 – Mr. B speed validates 141 p. in 60 min
12:55-14:42 – Mr. B speed validates 247 p. in 107 min
14:59 – Mr. B posts Vanity Fair on New Texts front page
15:10-15:13 - Very next edit: Mr. B. begins validating one of my works
15:37-15:45 – Mr. B speed validates some of An Introduction to physiological and systematical botany, then falls silent.
19:02 Beeswaxcandle is apparently the first to notice Vanity Fair on New Texts and is skeptical; he tests a page and is the first to correct one of them.
19:03-19:06 Mr. B. immediately replies to a message on his talk page and stops editing.
19:27-21:29 Mpaa and Xensyria apparently have doubts about Vanity Fair and also make several corrections to Vanity Fair.
21:15 Mr. S. begins speed validating Dr. Dolittle.
21:50 - I take a break from editing and happen to see the main page. I can’t believe Vanity Fair had been validated so quickly after its proofreading was marked complete. I check some pages and I find a few with errors (not related to punctuation style), with one page having four errors. I check the validator, Mr. B, and notice he had been speed validating.
I also notice Mr. S was speed validating Dr Dolittle, but being a children’s book with short pages, I know without looking that there’s no risk of scandal to Wikisource for inaccuracy for a short time, unless it was on the main page, and that it already had been on the main page featured in New Texts.
22:16 – Mr. S finishes his speed validation of Dr Dolittle.
22:18 – Mr. S marks Dr Dolittle validated.
22:21 – I block Mr. B, citing “too many bad validations”—we needed time to assess the damage and make a plan to fix the problem.
22:22 – I remove Vanity Fair from New Texts on the main page.
22:26 – I check a different New Text posted by Mr. B for vandalism.
22:38 – Mr. W begins validating a juvenile fiction book with short pages.
22:42 – I inquire on the Administrative Noticeboard for the best way to rollback a series of validations in one index by a single user.
22:57 – Billinghurst asks Mr. S to explain the rapid series of validations and remarks it resembled the work of a bot. At Wikisource bots must be registered.
22:58 – Mr. W begins speed validating. I check some of the pages and feel he can plausibly do the job with the amount of time he’s spending, although they are as fast as the other two. Later, Beeswaxcandle finds a large number of them performed correctly.
23:23 – Mr. W completes his first run of speed validation.

comment by billinghurst

I have been advocated to/used as a sounding board on this matter by numerous parties (inside and outside enWS), the external due to ShakespeareFan00 spruiking through IRC and other forums about how he believes that he has been 'hard done by'. We don't have a formal process, nor a hierarchical structure in this area, and we really haven't previously needed one. Previously our practice of being able to discuss and negotiate has been able to get us through some of our difficulties at various times. Our use of a block on established editors has neither been our standard approach, nor our expected approached when reading Wikisource:Block policy. I have been stand-off on this matter as I am not completely neutral with my opinions, especially with regard to how I react to one of the participants, plus activities elsewhere have been absorbing my administrative time; plus I was getting various contacts; and I was aware that another administrator was reviewing the subject. If that is unacceptable to the community, then I offer my apologies. Anyway, after yet another 'in my face' today, so I have taken the time to read what is written and to look at the edits, especially review some of the data that to which I have access.

I had done earlier checkuser checks looking for bots (as noted above) and today to get a third in a series. At this point of time I can report to the community that the edits by the three accused editors are from three separate users, well separated by geolocation. [checkuer] In reviewing their pages I see no communications at all between any of these three parties, no associated cross-interests, or anything that show that these three parties are associated. Nil. So if it is not a conspiracy, we then have coincidence.

Here are the blocks that have been applied

21:54, 1 March 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Widux (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 22:58, 24 June 2014 (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Co-ordinated disruption, interfering with an investigation) (unblock | change block)
21:46, 1 March 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 21:15, 24 February 2015 (account creation disabled) (Vandalism: (typo) Vandalism, Co-ordinated disruption, interfering with an investigation) (unblock | change block)
21:46, 1 March 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 21:15, 24 February 2015 (account creation disabled) (Vandalism: V) (unblock | change block)
21:45, 1 March 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 21:15, 24 February 2015 (account creation disabled) (Vandalism: Vandalism, Co-ordinated disruption, interfering with an investigation) (unblock | change block)
21:44, 1 March 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 21:15, 26 February 2013 (account creation disabled) (Vandalism: Vandalism, Co-ordinated disruption, interfering with an investigation) (unblock | change block)
21:36, 1 March 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for The Bible in Metre (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 14:50, 23 February 2015 (account creation disabled) (Vandalism: Vandalism, Co-ordinated disruption, interfering with an investigation) (unblock | change block)
20:39, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 18:12, 4 March 2013 (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Confining to userpage until disruption issue is resolved. Reblocked: claims can't edit userpage.) (unblock | change block)
18:19, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 18:15, 4 March 2013 (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Confining to userpage until disruption issue is resolved) (unblock | change block)
18:15, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing) (unblock | change block)
18:12, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Confining to userpage until disruption issue is resolved.) (unblock | change block)
10:55, 25 February 2013 Billinghurst (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 hours (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: user has been asked to desist from editing, this is a pointed reminder to desist) (unblock | change block)
10:07, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) (Checkuser complete: Account presumed not to have been compromised.)
10:03, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) (Investigation complete, account presumed to be not compromised.)
05:05, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked ShakespeareFan00 (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Other account follows unusual pattern of Bible_in_Metre (fast validations) immediate block to prevent possible inaccurate validations) (unblock | change block)
05:03, 25 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Sfan00 IMG (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Follows unusual pattern of Bible_in_Metre (fast validations) immediate block to prevent possible inaccurate validations) (unblock | change block)
22:21, 24 February 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs | block) blocked The Bible in Metre (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 week (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Too many bad validations.) (unblock | change block)

We have an escalation of blocks, and to periods that do not make sense to me, well not without community agreement. I do not see that the blocks are inline with our block policy nor align with that of the broader WMF (m:Blocking policy). In fact I believe that we have blocked people found guilty by attribution. In the end, I cannot support all these blocks, as I cannot support the evidentiary basis. Unfortunately I am seeing a more strident approach rather than an educative/conciliatory approach. This is not to say that we do not have issues with speed and inaccurate validation, but I do not think that are using the right tools with the right means to address that issue, block is too coarse and too intolerant for good faith editors.

Proposed solution re blocks

In my opinion only, I believe that we should doing the following with regard to blocks (though there may be some refinements)

1. User:Widux — unblock and offer a sincere apology, no conditions, though I believe that the editor has left, we can still do the humble thing. They have done nothing wrong, their edits are good and seem to fall within an acceptable error rate; they do edit quickly but unless we can find fault with their editing; rate of editing alone is not a suitable indicative measure. We lost a new editor as collateral damage. :-(
2. User:The Bible in Metre — unblock with an apology for not following due process, though a note about good validation practice. The editor has been editing enthusiastically, probably too enthusiastically and with insufficient attention to detail so needs to be guided that accuracy is more important than rate. That autopatrolled is NOT quantitative, that the community is more based around qualitative measures, and this across a range of namespaces. If they don't have time to be particular, then maybe this is not the time to validate. We could consider an editing rate being applied. This should be negotiated by discussion.
3. User:ShakespeareFan00 / User:Sfan00_IMG — one (main) account unblocked, and the other blocked indefinitely, information about improving the quality of their work, by reducing rate of editing (well at least at this stage). It is an area of significant concern to me that a long established user would not seem to have the inability to not stop when asked to do so, and is swapping between accounts so avoiding talk page notes and blocks (even accidental). Further we have inaccurate validation at speed, and then a refusal to accept that they were at fault in what they were doing, and seemingly rudely dispute the opinions of others. The subsequent behaviour in other forums has been less than endearing, so some self-reflection on their part, and the acknowledgement of the lack of quality of their work initiated their problems. Any apology to me would seem trite in this situation, though accepting that we didn't follow the blocking policy fully should be acknowledged. I would expect that the user will present their case about how they will improve their quality and I believe that we should also consider removal of autopatrolled status until we are confident that qualitative standards are regained.

• I support these proposed solutions. I suggest the addition of a ban on validating for a negotiated period of time for both The Bible in Metre and ShakespeareFan00. At the end of the period there would then be a further period of supervised validation. I'm prepared to act in the supervisory role if that's agreed on. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Given the accounts provided here, I support the proposal above. Apology and unblock do not need to occur together, and if Widux remains blocked this should be corrected immediately. There is a long standing tradition in the Wikifamily of reactive blocks being used solely to stop on going inappropriate behavior, for which there is no evidence provided for this user. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I lifted the block at 9:41 (UTC) today and offered a note of sincere regret and defense regarding the block at 13:11 (UTC) ResScholar (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, and also thanks for the words at User_talk:Widux#My sincere regrets. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I will address the other blocks/writing when I get up in 8-10 hours, leaning towards Billinghurst's solution, but if someone wants to do a supervised unblock of the other two, I won't object. ResScholar (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to reflect and act on these matters. I saw BWC's hand go up as a volunteer, and I personally would like to accept his generous offer as long as it exists. I had an email from SF00 with his general acceptance of the above suggested resolution, and I boldly forwarded that to BWC with some thought bubbles. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm late, I'm not trying to stall. The TV is on in this room, so I have printed out this section of the noticeboard, and will study it and try to reply in the next room and bring it back here. ResScholar (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I will unblock Božidar (The Bible in Metre) now. Please watch his edits while I compose an explanatory note (what has happened, what we expect) to him. ResScholar (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still working on the note. I am willing to unblock ShakespeareFan. He needs to decide which account he wants to keep, though, first. ResScholar (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, they can be merged. Someone else has to merge the accounts, because I don't know how. ResScholar (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We don't have the merge account extension implemented here, so it can't currently be done. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to take my supplements that help my concentration until later in the day. I've come up with some pearls of wisdom, but I'm having trouble stringing them into a necklace, so to speak. I should come with something in the next six hours. If not, there's tomorrow. ResScholar (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

At 10:22 I left a notice on Božidar's talk page about the block being remanded and why it was remanded, the probation he has been offered, and an offering of my regrets if my departures from following usual block procedures injured him in some way, while defending offering a defense of those departures. ResScholar (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC) 11:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to sleep at 13:30. If someone arranges for ShakespeareFan to pick an account after then, they can unblock. ResScholar (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The main account (ShakespeareFan00) has been chosen. I've changed the alternate account (Sfan00 IMG) to indef. I have to head out now, so haven't done anything with the main account. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I just unblocked the ShakespeareFan00 account. ResScholar (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal around blocking by administrators

The blocking approach by the administrator seems to have lacked some of the components that the community has expected as some have expressed, however, we so rarely get these situations, I am hoping that as a community this is a wake-up call to all of us that we can be blinded by our own short term vision, rather than the longer term perspective of why we are at enWS and doing what we are doing. As administrators, we are just members of the community though with advanced tools, and trusted by the community to know the community's expectations, goals and to judge the processes. We are not elevated in status, we are open to question and able to be challenged on our decision-making. I think that the blocking administrator has not reflected well on the overarching aims and has stuck to stridently defending their initial position, even when contrary information has been presented; and then used the administrative tools excessively without exploring alternate means to resolution. Some of this may reflect how we have not been working as a team of administrators, rather than as singularities; both in a supportive sense, but also to test and challenge, and that we need to look at our communication processes. So I am not requesting anything restrictive of ResidentScholar beyond to step back and review their actions against the goal.

— billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No opinion on the specific proposals but I endorse everything else here. At this point my greatest concern is the continuation of blocks without a continuation of dialogue. Every user, regardless of their behaviour, is entitled to an explanation of any sanction they receive, and it grieves me that this is not occurring. Hesperian 02:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably a worthwhile time for us all to reread the blocking policy, and to come back with suggestions on whether it reflects us in 2013. Since 2009, apart from some copy edits, the only addition is the section "Multiple Accounts". I know that with the current prevalence of spambots that I block more readily. I will also sheepishly admit to have not read it in full for a couple of years. My bad. Thanks for listening to my blather and allowing me to put forward a proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for change to Wikisource:Blocking policy should be discussed at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Proposals. I personally am considering a suggestion, but am not ready to voice it yet. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more to add that commentary at Wikisource talk:Blocking policy, and you are correct that it should be a community approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your selection for venue is probably better then mine, if the changes are going to be significant a notice at Scriptorium about the discussion should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Jeepday

I have reviewed our blocking policy and believe that the key tenants that should have been followed are addressed there. There are probably opportunities to fine tune the writing of the policy, but I am not feeling compelled to make any suggestions.

I have not reviewed the details of the three blocks, but based on the details posted here, it seems that what was off track is now back on track. Those currently involved seem to have the required details and commitment to bring about the most favorable resolution possible.

Having not participated in semi private communications on user talk pages or IRC. I don’t feel that I had any significant participation in the event(s). I saw some comments on Scriptorium‎ and those that were posted here. Based on what I have seen I have two suggestions (hindsight being so much clearer) and one observation

S1. These blocks fall into Controversial blocks and given the information that is now publicly posted here; an earlier entry and tracking of events here c/would have eliminated most of the more painful events that occurred. I would strongly recommend that in future events with any potential as a Controversial block, that involved contributors (admin or not) be encouraged to document events and suggestions here.

S2. The creation and use of more block warning templates at Wikisource:User warning templates

O1. While we all wish events had played out differently, and while there is room for improvement, I don’t see cause for sanctions against the primary admin involved nor any of the secondary admins. There were sufficient publicly posted notes to bring attention to the events that were unfolding. As the comment here by Billinghurst says "the whole community, not just the one administrator. The community failed". It seems like the primary involved admin felt that they were solely responsible for addressing the mater, and all of the admins who where active on Wikisource and saw any hint of what was developing without following up, starting a discussion here, or offering to participate; are equally involved in the failure. Myself included. Jeepday (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask you to strike the word guilty. I may be sensitive to the connotations of the word, but to me we had a system failure, we had human error, and other elements contributing. I don't think that we have a suitable or adequate means to judge guilt or to lay blame, and in this case, I don't find it helpful compared to us building solutions, and our means to prevent further failure. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Reworded, slightly. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for that consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Khesapeake

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Delete all works as G7. Jeepday (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Doing my prep work for the next round of copyvio housekeeping I noticed that all the copyvio tags and been removed from the works under discussion at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#At_Bukovyna. All the pages were updated by User:Khesapeake or an IP. I protected the pages pending outcome of copyvio discussion. I went to the users talk page in anticipation of leaving a note, but noticed that several attempts at communication had not caused a response at the users talk page. On checking Special:Contributions/Khesapeake to see if maybe communications had occurred on other talk pages, I noticed the user has recently begun creation of new and similar works on Wikisource. Requesting someone else check the the new works, and see if we have a problem. Jeepday (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Beginning with what date? ResScholar (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

March 8th, I believe everything else is subject to the current Copyvio discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Today he has also removed the Copyvio discussion from his talkpage, see http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKhesapeake&diff=4346964&oldid=4299232--Mpaa (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And removed all the copyvio notices again. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Has received a clearly worded notice to change behavior. [2], no edits since as current. I have restored the copyvio notices on the pages under discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Person is around and talking, and I believe mollified after I got a bit of a spray, which would indicate frustration. Our approach may have been a little ragged on this matter. Can someone please take it, I have my hands full with other matters, and only so much patience. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Writing a note now. Jeepday (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Made an attempt, provided a warning, I am going to be away for at least a few hours. Jeepday (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Useless.--Mpaa (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

'Useless' would be an understatement. He/She still reverted all the mainspace CopyVio tags in addition to leaving Billinghurst a brand new steaming pile of rant on his talk-page. I do appreciate his/her timing re: hosting translations though. I'm going to up the protection on the works in question to Admins only unless somebody here objects to that. Hopefully, the inability to edit/revert those works will get him/her to come visit the Possible Copyright Violation discussion page instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have blocked the user, they are not understanding Wikisource at all. If they are the original translator then how would they react when some tweaks the translation? Having read the note, moved from Billinghurs’s talk to theirs I wonder if they will be back, once they discover they are no longer able to edit the blanked pages. Jeepday (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Billinghurst has moved another comment from his talk page to the users, it was posted about 2 hours after I posted to the users talk page. Khesapeake does not show understanding of the messages we have been attempting to communicate. I am tending to believe they are probably the original author of the work, All their responses indicate frustration at Wikisource not making THEIR work visible to the world and the users friends as the work of the Khesapeake. They are also asking for the works to be deleted if the expectations of Khesapeake can not be met. I lean towards deleting per G7 simply because I don’t beleive that Khesapeake understands the licensing they agreed to by posting here. Though I would be equally ok with keeping the works, if others wanted to provide keep support at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#At_Bukovyna. I see 3 options, it would be a community judgement call on which way to go.

1. Khesapeake is not the author, and the translated works should be deleted for copyright issues
2. Khesapeake is the author, who mistakenly posted a copyright license that has since been removed, the works have now been release CC-BY-SA 3.0, we keep the works as they are public domain.
3. Khesapeake is the author, who posted the works for vanity reasons without understanding the licensing agreed to by posting here, is requesting deletion and we should honor that request.

From a simple closure perspective, it is two good reasons to delete, with a questionable reason to keep > Delete. I of course have been overly involved and may have shaded perspectives. I don’t have a problem waiting a few days for further developments and honoring the request to delete all works published by Khesapeake here. If anyone beleives the works should be kept please post a rational at the copyvio discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I opt for No. 3. As long as this does not set a binding precedent.--Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up on recent admin confirmation discussions

Hi all,

Just a note that I archived four successful admin confirmation discussions and started a new confirmation discussion for Tarmstro99... and then realised that I still had the "bot user" flag on. Therefore these actions will not appear on watchlists / recent changes unless you have "show bots" turned on. Oops.

I'm flagging it here because the effect of my gaffe has been to reduce community scrutiny of actions that I've taken in my role as a 'crat, and I think it proper that I counteract that, even at the expense of my dignity. ;-)

Hesperian 10:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

At the expense of my dignity, I've not understood how you can have a bot flag on (and I've supposed this to be linked to April 1st) but there are such a lot of things I don't know or don't understand... very probably it was one in this lot?

Bot's contribs?

(show/hide) 10:57, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+664)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→‎Heads-up on recent admin confirmation discussions: new section) (top) [rollback 1 edit] (show/hide) 10:39, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+84)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators ‎ (→‎Confirmation discussions: 1 new confirmation discussion: Tarmstro99) (top) [rollback 3 edits] (show/hide) 10:37, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators ‎ (→‎Current administrators: update next confirmation dates) (show/hide) 10:36, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators/Archives ‎ (→‎Timeline: push back timeline 1 month) (top) [rollback more than 10 edits] (show/hide) 10:36, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+239)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators/Archives ‎ (→‎Active: update archive index) (show/hide) 10:35, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-3,956)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators ‎ (→‎Confirmation discussions: archive four successful confirmations) (show/hide) 10:35, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,021)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/John Vandenberg ‎ (2013-03 confirmation) (top) [rollback 2 edits] (show/hide) 10:35, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+921)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Jusjih ‎ (2013-03 confirmation) (top) [rollback 2 edits] (show/hide) 10:35, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,012)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Yann ‎ (2013-03 confirmation) (top) [rollback 2 edits] (show/hide) 10:34, 1 April 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,047)‎ . . Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Zhaladshar ‎ (2013-03 confirmation) (top) [rollback 2 edits]

--Zyephyrus (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't go in for April Fools. The "bot user" flag, otherwise known as the "flood flag", really exists. See Wikisource:Bot users and Meta:Flood flag. Hesperian 00:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can hide or show bot edits in your preferences with "Hide bot edits from the watchlist". If you don’t have it checked bot edits are preceded by a b, similar for minor edits with m. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Hesperian and Jeepday. I knew what a bot flag is, but I thought the bot, not the master of the bot, had or had not the flag, so I thought this affair might be a joke : mistake of mine and so, no April fool...  :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The 'bot flag' and the 'bot user flag' are different things though, and the latter is a misnomer. Hesperian 00:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

BarkingFish and sockpuppets

• BarkingFish (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

1. Tmalmjursson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
2. Cat in the Hat (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
3. Humblesnore (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)

Per w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BarkingFish/Archive, these have all been Confirmed as longtime socks of BarkingFish (talk • contribs).

What do other admins think should be done about this, with regards to the main account? -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. There is no evidence that the user has edited here at any point. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input, -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"So?" was my first thought. If there is no signs of abuse, not sure why we would want to do anything. enWP wastes hours and hours on people who have multiple accounts, and they're not doing damage. My general advice is to block accounts that are doing damage, and that maintains order. If/when we have to do a CU, and we find a plethora, we can deal with it then. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked the two accounts that were unblocked as I do not see how the blocks applied showed that the accounts were in contravention with Wikisource:Blocking policy, though if someone believes that they are, then reblock. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, technically they're Confirmed socks, but I'll defer to the judgement here of Billinghurst (talk • contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

On Wikipedia they may be socks, but on Wikisource they are alternate accounts that are inactive, and have not violated our rules so have not meet the Blocking Criteria. Should one (or more) of the accounts become active on Wikisource, we would expect the user to edit appropriately here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood, I'll respectfully defer to the judgment of the community, as expressed above, which is why I brought this matter to this board for discussion in the first place. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

MODCHK

This user has been blocked for speed-validating on at least two occasions. He said he didn't place the result on New Texts only because of a technical issue. See User talk:Beeswaxcandle. ResScholar (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a vision for the culture of the English Wikisource, and it is welcoming, supportive, tolerant, understanding, eager to listen, patient in explaining. It is a place where contributors feel they are surrounded by friends; where they feel safe and comfortable; where it is okay to stuff up because errors lead to guidance, not punishment; and that guidance may at times be stern but is always offered in a spirit of compassion. Most importantly, my Wikisource is a place that we don't just contribute to; it is a place that we belong to.

Lately I am concerned that we are heading somewhere very different. Lately it seems to me that we are embracing a culture of "perform or fuck off". This bothers me a lot. Hesperian 13:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope in "contributors" you are also referring to the performance of administrators as well as editors. Because I can't get my mind around seeing five validations in under a minute as good faith edits. ResScholar (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There are at least a couple conditions under which such validations can be done in 'good faith'. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am not seeing where there was a discussion to attempt to modify the behavior before blocking. Can some point me to the conversation please? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No Jeepday, there wasn't one. What my remarks elliptically intended were that I didn't see them to be in good faith, so I didn't see the point. ResScholar (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that, even at the place of extreme drama there is a broader assumption of good faith then that. Per our Wikisource:Blocking policy rapid validation is not listed a blockable offense. Looking at User_talk:MODCHK the user seems have a history of working towards the same goals as the rest of us, and I am not seeing a notice to the user that they are blocked, for what reason, nor any direction on how to challenge the block. All of which I would consider basic considerations. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked MODCHK. If that is the wrong approach, I will gladly take that criticism and mention this is my upcoming confirmation, which I believe is next month.

I do not see a clear contravention that enables this action to be undertaken under the blocking policy. (Vandalism, Excessive reverts, Personal attacks, Posting personal details, Disruption, Copyright infringement and plagiarism, Usernames, "Public" accounts, Multiple Accounts, Bots, Anonymous and open proxies, Policy violations). Even if I did, I see no reason for a punitive action of two weeks. What does two weeks gain? I see no analysis of the transcription efforts or a demonstration that the actions undertaken are wrong. Clearly this is the case where a conversation should have been undertaken, a request to stop if there are concerns, and a discussion about what are your concerns.

@ResidentScholar: This sees to be something that should have been approached as per Wikisource:Blocking policy#Controversial blocks but it has not. In fact, I do not see a different approach from you from the previous case where you took actions that disturbed the community. I find this unusual and somewhat confronting. I request that you refrain from blocking users, and up until your next confirmation. To me you seem to have stepped into something akin to Wikisource:Blocking_policy#When_blocking may not be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Billinghurst, you asked "what does two weeks gain"? My answer to you is time to discuss what I saw to be his hostile behavior, reduce it from two weeks if we feel he won't continue with what I observed as injurious editing, increase it if we feel he will continue with it. To me this is a standard block for observed minor vandalism, one week for each count. As an established user, he should know the rules.

You also claim in the past I "took actions that disturbed the community". I had thought that at that time I had blocked based on the assumption of co-ordinated disruption. When that assumption was shown by your research in the course of normal further investigative events to be disproven as coincidence, I removed the blocks as quickly as possible.

My stated reason for the block was disruption, so there is no need to look for an blocking-occasion for it to fall under. To me speed-validating is equivalent in traffic offenses to reckless driving.

Before I continue, I'd like to note that this conversation started with Hesperian's lament that his vision of Wikisource as a place "where contributors feel they are surrounded by friends" is no longer to be. And yet instead of seeing people working trying to return to that atmosphere, instead I suddenly find myself in a situation which I would find more characteristic of as being "surrounded by wiki-lawyers" (literally, persons above and below me on the page engaged in discussions about legalities). ResScholar (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally follow the beleif that Blocks should not be punitive, they are the last option not the first. It is not about what is legal it is about the expecations that are documented in the links. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would ask you and Jeepday, if you had lost your temper or your patience and done something you regret, would you want a lot of publicity for that event, or for it to be handled quietly? That is why I hesitated before placing a block notice on MODCHK's user page; if MODCHK had simply had a moment of anger, I thought it would be appropriate administrative action not to embarrass him further. Yet Jeepday has, in effect, used what was my consideration against me in his argument. And if MODCHK is "working toward the same goals as the rest of us", why wouldn't he know enough to follow the PRIVATE (non-publicized) block notice that comes up when you try to edit?

Billinghurst, issues of quietness aside, had you simply stated to me, as you said above, "I see no analysis of the transcription efforts or a demonstration that the actions undertaken are wrong," and stated you wished to see them, I again would have hesitated, then probably would have obliged you with these explanations, despite the reliving of what I saw to be MODCHK's brief but deliberate disruption, and because I saw it to be deliberate would have also been reluctant to agree "conversation should have been undertaken, a request to stop if there are concerns, and a discussion about what are your concerns." Are these valid reasons for reluctance to you? If they are, I am willing to move past them and do all that you suggest, regardless of the philosophical differences I have, simply as a gesture of good will towards the withdrawal of the challenge to the good faith (even if not to the good judgment) of my administrative actions

If they are not valid reasons of reluctance for you, then probably nothing I would do would restore that good faith, so whether I would do what you would have wished I had done would have to depend on whether those actions would aid in restoring the good faith of others (except your request not to block anyone—I will refrain from doing that regardless). In closing let me express my regrets if my quietness fostered suspicion of ill-will of any kind on my part. In making decisions among groups, it can be a hard thing to choose between remaining quiet and risking the appearance of insolence while really hoping the basis for making decisions are understood and risking embarrassment of oneself and others by stating things too plainly. ResScholar (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me clarify something that may have been lost in the course of my long argument. I will give a description of MODCHK's edits in a way similar to the way I did in the earlier block discussion a month or so ago on the noticeboard to any admin who asks for it, regardless of whether they accept my explanation of why I acted as I did. I volunteer it to Billinghurst, without his asking, so long as he is of the belief that I acted at least with good faith. But bear in mind, for whichever admin I produce these details, they will receive it on MODCHK's behalf to have it recorded on the administrative noticeboard. ResScholar (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some people here are "above" and "below others"—Who? In what context? We're all volunteers here. Nobody here wears stripes on the sleeve, has clusters on the collar, or stars on the shoulder. I may well be "below" someone here along with others but I haven't considered that before now. It sounds a tad bombastic (uppity) to me. Imagine a general without an army and then who is he? Everyone here is an editor and we all care about en.WS or we would not be here. There is no ladder to be climbed to be "above" anyone else. We all do the best we can and we protect each other because "we" are all we have here. Let there be peace or we all lose. I think any person who has worked here as much as a year should at least have the community vote on any punishment. Punishments can cause hatred and hatred can be taken outside of wikisource. I don't think that any one person should be able to simply block out a person for 2 weeks and especially not with people who have contributed so much to Wikisource. —Maury (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We all have different views and different ways we would do things. ResScholar believes they did the right thing, and others don't, there is nothing wrong with having those beliefs. As for "any one person should be able to simply block out a person for 2 weeks and especially not with people who have contributed so much to Wikisource" as billinghurst points out this is in conflict with Controversial_blocks. It has also been suggested that ResScholar refrain from blocking users, for some period of time. I tend to agree that refraining from further blocks might be a good idea, not because I harbor any ill feeling towards anyone, but because the decisions that ResScholar makes about block don't seem to reflect that decision that the communitty in general would make. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel somewhat conflicted on this matter. Hmm, no, I am clearly opinionated and in one direction.

1. I had previously asked MODCHK to wear the admin mantle as in their time here they display sense and judgment that I desire from prospective admins; note that I was declined. FWIW I still feel that way. So I am not neutral in my opinion, and it affected my stance with regard to an unblock.
2. I intervened in the previous case, and I don't want that to be seen as my role. Each admin needs to be able to make a stand, and sometimes that needs to be more than a commentary. Sure we need to respect a decision made by our fellow administrators, at the same time they need to be challenged, sometimes overturned. I feel that if an admin overturns another admins position/decision, that the overturning admin should step away. [Well, in lieu of an arbitrative group, and having seen those operational elsewhere, it is not where I wish us to be.]
3. I get too opinionated, and that can get in the way of a sharing of responsibility and sharing of actions.
4. I am firmly in the camp that "blocks should not be used on established members of the community", at least not by a committee of one. To me it is a lack of respect, though maybe as a shot across the bows to get someone's attention. Everything is reversible at a wiki, and while I know that you acted in good faith, the consequences of poor decision-making on a community member are equal or worse to minor vandalism, and I don't think that has weighed sufficiently in this decision. Vandalism and poor editing can easily be reversed, people are not so easily reversed. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not want to see anyone here punished or leave. I think we all make a good team. Who here has not achieved good work for wikisource? People often make mistakes, all of us make mistakes. The situation with us humans is that we have emotions and once taken to an extreme those emotions harden. Some people cannot let that go just as some can not, or will not apologize on other situations in life. That's a problem I have never had but I do know such things are not worth it. Anger comes after the emotions of hurt. Anger is used to overcome the feeling of hurt and especially when a person feels betrayed by a friend/friends. It is a difficult come-back for some people and is impossible for others. I still miss some of the people that were here working and helping who left. Tannersf was only one of them. He was working hard and at time working with AdamBMorgan and me. I was learning from the both of them as we three worked on volumes of the Southern Historical Society. It is sad that he is gone, he was a good and helpful and dedicated editor. I feel he was bullied away. I wonder how much more he could have, and would have, contributed to our wikisource. Add to that all other that have left. It is our loss. OTOH, I am proud I had nothing to do with that which is why I feel I should take a stand in defense of others of dedication and long term here. In reference to speed-validation, that is easy to do. I myself sometimes have done that. I will start reading someone's project and look for mistakes as I go. As long as I see no mistakes I keep reading. When a mistake comes to my attention, I enter, validate all I have already read and correct the found mistake which may be more than two or three pages away. I enjoy a good read and desire to keep reading and do -- but when I spot something, I validate what I have gone over and correct the mistake. That would appear to be "speed-validating" -- like a speeding car as someone here put it. However, if that process of continuous reading of several pages is wrong I have not been aware of it. It seems to me that a continuous read out of a keen interest of a work is a closer read. Happy reading and editing to all here who depend upon each other or we shall surely sink lower and lower into the deep blue seas of hardened & negative emotions -- like Captain Bligh and his one-time dear friend, Mr. Christian. —Maury (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Two weeks in the Brig on Bread and Water

I like and totally agree with the "vision" stated above. I dislike profanities posted on Wikisource. They are not needed for more than one reason here. Young kids use them, the military uses them, we all know them but when using intellect one can easily avoid them. I don't know what MODCHK was doing, or rather to what extent he was doing wrong, but I think 2 weeks is too harsh. MODCHK has helped me many times and knows what to do but with 2 weeks on bread and water he may use that time to start supporting another place and we here lose another editor and we do not have many active editors. —Maury (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoted from above:

" Because I can't get my mind around seeing five validations in under a minute as good faith edits. ResScholar (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)"

" There are at least a couple conditions under which such validations can be done in 'good faith'. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)"

I agree with Londonjackbooks. I don't know of "a couple conditions" and they are not mentioned but I do know of one. I would hope that anyone would be asked for details on any speed-validating as to what they are doing before any punishments are silently handed down with a silent lock-out. This "speed-validation" situation should be worked out so that it hopefully will not happen again. Speed-validation can be an illusion. BTW, what speed is a speed-validation? Little wonder, if any, so few works are completely left unvalidated -- some people may simply stop validating and "play it safe". We get nothing from validating another's work anyhow so it shouldn't be the issue that it apparently is. —Maury (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Response from the dock

How truly pleasant to log on and discover this complete storm in a teacup has developed whilst I was off-line!

How can I not come to the conclusion this community is infected with a special kind of insanity?

1. Did I disrupt any other editor?...NO.
2. Did I abuse anybody?...NO (but that may change after this experience! Monkey see, monkey do.)
3. Was there a problem with the quality of my work...(Well apparently nobody lifted a finger to check these new-fangled fact thingys before making dire accusations; so you do not know, do you?)
4. As for "he didn't place the result on New Texts only because of a technical issue": what complete fantasy is this? I do not even understand where this comes from; or the relevance in any case. Is this the result of illegal drugs, as I have elsewhere suggested to JeepdaySock?

Thank you guys for making my very first (and possibly only) posting to WS:Administrators' noticeboard one where I have to state that I do not think very highly of your demonstrated abilities. Hang your collective heads in shame! This is not at all your finest hour. MODCHK (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tabling:

"George Orwell III (Talk | contribs | block) blocked George Orwell III (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (autoblock disabled) (Solidarność)"

For those unaware, "solidarność" = "solidarity". Hesperian 04:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A very special note for ResidentScholar

Complete catastrophic empathy and responsibility failure on your part is hardly my responsibility. However when you make same my problem you had better not be surprised when I respond with proportionate vigour. Yes, you could have annoyed me more, but under the circumstances I don't seriously wish you to try.

However:

Thank you truly for contacting me to discuss these issues before blocking my account thus:

20:28, 23 April 2013 ResidentScholar (Talk | contribs) blocked MODCHK (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (account creation disabled) (Disruptive editing: Speed-validated on at least two occasions; claims didn't post result as new text only due to a technical issue.)

Thank you also for your diligent investigations into what really occurred, and your typically sympathetic handling of the situation. While on the topic, thank you for simply not being an arrant fool about the matter.

Thank you also for not lying and "making up" reasons to justify your blocking actions. (I strongly recommend your looking up integrity next time you have a moment free. You might find it a novel concept.)

Oh, so you didn't do any of those things? In which case I had better withdraw all of the above appreciation. I can see we two are not exactly destined to be allies. I hope you are truly embarrassed; but I am not prepared at this point in time to allow you so much leeway.

Finally, why am I posting this here rather than on your talk page? Not only am I treating you with the contempt your actions call upon yourself; I feel it is important for others to judge you in public forum much as you have (mis-)treated me. I do not know you well enough to call you a fool; but I am not so shy as not to believe it in private.

Neither do I respect you enough to expect the abject grovelling apology I consider you owe me; nor to accept it in the very unlikely instance were you to offer it. Remember; you picked this fight. Normally I try not to bear grudges, but in your case I shall be proud to make a rare exception. MODCHK (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A very special note for Billinghurst

Thank you truly for contacting me to discuss these issues before unblocking...

Oh, so you didn't either? Nonetheless I am grateful for at least somebody "in power" demonstrating a minimum of balance. It is nice to know who your real friends are. MODCHK (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are truly welcome. You can slap me all you like, I know that I am imperfect, profess it and live it; but my justice-gene will always get the better of me; but maybe not my email gene. You are also welcome to mailbox, and every spare moment that I didn't have today, and all the other freaking issues that crowded my day. You are special, and unique, but unfortunately not the only issue of the day. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A very special note to JeepdaySock

A genuine thank you for being the only person to actually attempt to contact me for an explanation of the situation. You come out of this fiasco with minimal tarnishment to your reputation; although I do note that you subscribed to the "at fault/by default" club—"impressions" are not always "reliable conclusions", are they?

Nevertheless, the spirit of enquiry at least is appreciated. MODCHK (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A very special note for George Orwell III

Summary: Cute m'lord. Risk of contempt of court barely skirted. (Means more than you can imagine to me. and yes, I "get" the implications.) MODCHK (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A proposal; and request for a vote

I am unaware as to whether there is any precedent for this sort of thing here; but what I propose is I voluntarily suspend all forms of posting for the period originally imposed by ResidentScholar. If during this period I receive more than (say) three emails effectively telling me my presence in the community is no longer desired I undertake to honour this and will not return in any guise whatsoever on any of the public mediawikis. Let us say from now to 8th May, 2013?

I will not pretend to be entirely "happy" to make this offer; however it does seem to me to be a responsible, democratic solution to the impasse. I shall not respond to any email sent, but will simply record the ballot result. I shall post the result here at the end of the period of survey. Fair enough?

As Billinghurst has let the cat out of the bag regarding my prior refusal to accept an administrative role; I consider this affair effectively resolves that matter in the nay. I would be far too tempted to indulge in petty revenge and/or character destruction... of the obvious target... In many ways I am a petty, petty person... yet terrified I could have turned into just another RS. MODCHK (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose your proposal, and support your remaining here. But you are a free agent. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. MODCHK is a valued member of this community. MODCHK gives daily proofs of this. No further proofs are needed. Instead, I propose you all pile on and publicly affirm that MODCHK is wanted. Hesperian 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've written what I think here and on your talk page. You are an good and important member of our community. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose your proposal and stumped that you are offering yourself to this kind of abuse. This is not a democratic process, and am emphatically against an admin's unilateral action visited upon a long time contributor of good standing such as yourself. On the lighter side of things - If you wish to suffer, how about ten days without toilet paper? — Ineuw talk 21:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Blind Freddy can see where the problem is. Moondyne (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I've only just noticed this !vote otherwise I would have posted here much earlier. It is just over a year that I welcomed MODCHK to the project (April 19, 2012) and in that time the work you have done in many areas is of huge value to the project overall. Your work on templates, your assistance to many of us with little tweaks on layout, your willingness to assist several of us with proofreading and validating works you probably have no interest in are all noticed and appreciated. We are a small community with a huge range of interests and we need people like yourself who move around and facilitate our goals and milestones. Not only did you complete the validation of our 1000th work, but you also did the 999th and the 1007th along with several others that I can't work out the ranking for right now. The three works are from completely different fields of knowledge (opening of a new library, an early travel work and a novel). I look forward to seeing your name in RecentChanges again soon. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

As promised almost a fortnight ago, here are the results of my unofficial poll inviting the community's view as to whether I should leave the public wikis. I am posting early as my internet connection is still unreliable, and I may not get another opportunity for a while.

Over the polling period:

pertinent response emails received:		2
number of disputed edits rolled back:		0
number of disputed edits corrected:		0
number of disputed edits altered in any fashion whatsoever:		0

You may recall I promised to leave the community if I received three or more requests to do so. Neither of the above-mentioned emails qualified as such (You two know who you are; and I value your thoughts and expressed goodwill highly.)

In fact, I am quite overcome (and not a little surprised!) with the general level of positive feeling shown. Even the less-pleasant suggestions (I am looking at both of you: Maury and Ineuw!) were clearly delivered in a spirit of levity which at the very least presaged an absolute minima of ill-will.

Now just in case there is anybody still reading this (and I expect everybody is as heartily sick of the whole affair as I am! I promise this will be my final word on the matter pending ResidentScholar's reappointment process; due in July.) I want to take the further opportunity of sharing these:

Some Myths (which) Need Debunking:

Obviously these are the lessons I personally take away from this whole sorry affair; I cannot speak for the community in any way. Nonetheless I hope at least some others may share in the following conclusions; and if not at least that some degree of useful thought might be provoked..

This incident, and almost all of the resultant discussion has been a practical exercise of misdirection and of chasing items we really never wanted to catch in the first place. Some examples:

• Speed Validations are Evil!

No they are not. Bad validations are evil. If any given edit improves or advances the project it must be welcomed. Any other attitude at all is simply unsupportable hypocrisy.

• ResidentScholar must stop blocking users!

No he should not. He should be free to do so provided he is open about his reasons for doing so, and those reasons are good ones acceptable to the community promptly provided. I emphasise, said reasons should be provided willingly and promptly. Any other activity regarded as so important as to delay an appropriate response is grounds for not applying the block in the first place, and leaving it to somebody who understands the ramifications of the activity they are embarking upon. No user should be excluded from the right of non-combatively challenging any activity whatsoever.

• I can detect speed validation by examining the Special:Contributions/MODCHK log!

No, quite apart from the above point regarding the lack of value in detecting speed validation; in fact you really cannot even do that, as there is simply insufficient information. You need to also know when the page was requested by the user, as well as when it was submitted to even estimate the elapsed time the user spent contemplating the edit. All you are able to detect is speed submission; and that is a quite different animal. To my knowledge, no simple wikimedia enquiry provides access to the extra information; you would require access to the HTTP server logs. Even then; basic SSL pass-through (which most people use by default) can still render this information practically unusable in any case.

• After facing this down, MODCHK will be untouchable!

No, I truly had better not be! If I make a mistake I want to learn how to improve or at least not make said mistake again. I may not appreciate or agree with your criticism; but your failure to make it is even more of a failure on your part than my original error, and we have both missed out upon a valuable opportunity one to educate the other. Either have the conviction of your beliefs, or accept that maybe those beliefs were not very useful ones to start with!

• Suspected malpractice is the same as actual malfeasance!

No, it is not. It may be a working hypothesis worthy of further development, but that really is about as far as it can be pushed pending solid facts. Every single one of us (especially including me!) has been guilt of this one. It is often hardest to discover your own implicit assumptions in any given case; nonetheless it is quite important to try, and to ensure they are actually sound.

To perhaps belabour the key point: Speed Submission ≢ Speed Validation ≢ Invalid Activity ≢ Evil Intent. That is an example of a little thing I call "logic." Sometimes it shows its value.

• The default action is good enough!

This is so rarely true it should not be relied upon. For example in this case, to block a user without attempting follow-up contact is never justifiable. There is no guarantee that the user will understand what to do without clear directions; and the "human touch" should never be overlooked, irrespective of the situation.

• Everybody understands the rules; so I don't have to explain myself!

No, not everyone understands the rules; and even if they did their interpretation is not likely to entirely match yours. Exert a little bit of effort and reach out to the other party. Maybe there is only a simple misunderstanding involved; not a super-paranoid conspiracy plan...

Of course, in an ideal world…none of this debacle would have ever have happened. MODCHK (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Speed Validations are Universal!

    No they are not; they are misunderstood at best. Be they fall somewhere in the range between the unbeknownst mutual collaboration set between individuals to the apparent development & application of 'helper' scripts, hardly any of it has been properly broached in our guidelines & practices to date. And as we all hopefully come to realize by now, when matters such as this are left to perpetually fend for themselves in areas preferred to be ever shaded gray -- without even a sliver of documentation or a paragraph of discussion even acknowledging its likely existence, never mind the actual practice of -- the chances for misconceptions and misunderstandings to develop and then accrue are sure to steadily rise over time. Eventually, things boil over and we pass a point where, rightly or wrongly, "attacks" frequently begin to take place.

    So while speedy enhanced validations proofreading, with the speedy validating type being the focus in this particular case, is not and should not ever be considered evil, they sure can be taken for granted, largely misunderstood and unnecessarily resented all at the same time they may be improving or advancing any given project. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary (provisional)

In my reading of the above, there is clear community consensus. That consensus is:

1. Though we value a high quality validation product, we place far more value on a culture that makes our fellow contributors feel welcome, appreciated and safe. That means resolving disputes through open communication wherever possible, and it means that further actions may only be taken in strict accordance with principles of due process and natural justice.
2. Resident Scholar's block of MODCHK was made in good faith inasmuch as it was aimed at improving the quality of our validation product. However it was contrary to our values around how we treat each other. In fact it would appear that the block rationale was completely wrong.
3. Therefore the community regrets Resident Scholar's block of MODCHK.

If this is not an inaccurate representation of consensus, then I would be happy to see this thread closed. I think there is just one remaining loose end, and that is the question of whether there is a pattern of Resident Scholar acting contrary to our values, and, if so, how this should be addressed. I propose to open a separate discussion on this. Hesperian 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Concur - ResidentScholar has agreed to stop blocking users. "except your request not to block anyone—I will refrain from doing that regardless"[3], ResidentScholar has a confirmation coming in a couple months and that might be the better venue for the discussion, as it will surely come up in any case. Much pain has been felt here, and a prolonged discussion at this point will not benefit the community. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I will defend myself of the charge, presented twice by Hesperian, that the block rationale in the case of MODCHK was completely wrong, but first I have to record here on the Adminstrators' noticeboard the supporting evidence describing MODCHK's edits I already mentioned in the last paragraph, paragraph 8, of my response to Billinghurst, near the top of this section. As I also stated there, either MODCHK or an administrator acting on behalf of MODCHK will have to request that I place this information into the record, here on the Administrators' noticeboard, because I would not want to embarrass MODCHK unnecessarily, despite what I see to be his false account of his actions. ResScholar (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

When I wrote the above I thought Billinghurst was leaving the discussion. Now I must say I don't know. But I did offer to Billinghurst to defend my actions in the form of a description and account of what I observed, the lack of which, he said, affected his opinion negatively as to the discretion I employed. For Billinghurst's sake and my own, I will write this description, because it's important—even at the risk of directing more administrative attention to someone who may have been overblocked, or as some believe, should not have been blocked—to disclose my motives and what I was responding to with regard to these "events" in a more complete and less haphazard fashion.

I'm sorry that Hesperian has regarded my explanations thus far having to do with the block as being made in bad faith ("completely wrong" in its "factual basis" ) To explain—I think this is shown to be Hesperian's opinion from the fact that these explanations I gave devoted to showing good faith in my administrative role towards MODCHK presupposed that I was being truthful about the facts (about MODCHK's actions). And now by my going further and defending my judgments, not just my good faith, even if I accept corrections of my judgments from the words already spoken here on the Administrative noticeboard, for the all the stronger reason (the reason of thinking them not based on correct facts to begin with) it would seem that Hesperian would regard it a moot question for him.

I need to go to sleep now, but will return in 8-11 hours and provide an update on progress towards the timely closing of this noticeboard section. ResScholar (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that I have regarded your explanations as being made in bad faith. Hesperian 13:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I must have overread what you were saying. I expect to be awake for the next 11 hours. Unless I fall ill, I will present at least a section tonight. ResScholar (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote some background information, but I think I'm going to let the community breathe another day. But I'm beginning to think I'm less at fault than I was. ResScholar (talk) 09:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless MODCHK has something to say, within, say, the next ten hours, I intend to present at least the section I prepared last night. It simply looks too much like I am stalling and disrespecting Hesperian who wants to close this section. ResScholar (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ResidentScholar: Sir, please let this argument go. Let it die. There is no need to continue it since Billinghurst has pointed out the rules. You can show the community "respect" by being kind enough to say nothing more about any of the wounded. Respect the community enough to allow the community to keep breathing and working. Please. Kind regards to all, —Maury (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that, as a principle of natural justice, ResidentScholar is entitled to defend their actions and should be extended all the time and latitude they want in which to do that. I would not have it said that we only listened to one side of the story. Hesperian 23:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

What would MODCHK have to say? Have you read the user talk page? The user has not edited in a couple days, most of the content is hidden, but open the section for editing to read it. Jeepday (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

So he's so sensitive to what my administrative opinion of him is (as a result of my quickly-reversed blocking action) that I can't even write a description of that blocking action? I'm just one administrator. What I think I'll do tonight is record an earlier, different, incident involving other parties that placed me on alert to the actions MODCHK undertook, and tomorrow, unless he gives up his silence, I'll give a description of his actions that I observed. Then, if we see that there was error on my part, we can see what that error was, and I can offer to make amends. ResScholar (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

:::: I saw what MODCHK said before it was hidden and after it was hidden. He was angry and did not compose a response. Best of all I like what Billinghurst said to MODCHK on that same page and it was good. It is great that we have billinghurst. He has skills that others do not appear to have including in communicating. Why keep throwing salt on a wound. MODCHK was mistreated and he constant sees his name (alias) being trashed by what he believes were his former friends -- and friends is what we all should endeavor to be here. Whatever else ResidentScholar ("they") has to say is throwing that salt every time he writes about MODCHK and I think he is smart enough to know that. Naturally MODCHK is not posting now. Thus far he is keeping his self-imposed word of not posting. Writing against him will only annoy him more and that is what we do not need. The man is wounded with hurt. Don't you know that? Think of what you would feel. Read what billinghurst stated to him in a kind manner on his talk page. Is it really worth it to you, ResidentScholar to continue prodding at a person who is not even here to defend himself to try to win an argument? I myself would not do what you intend to continue. The rule about blocking was pointed out to you. Well, I guess some are determined to see MODCHK leave but I am not one of them. How many active administrators do we have left here? How many editors have left in the last year? "Men may cry out, peace, peace, but there is no peace..." (Patrick Henry) We here need all of our working people.—Maury (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind what I wrote above which will be done anyhow. Go for each other's throat and be done with it. Later in all your dreams think of who really was right and wrong for a very long time knowing you can change nothing. —Maury (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Preceding speed-validating incident not involving MODCHK

March 30, 2013, 6:30-8:01: I do some proofreading. Afterwards on Recent Changes I notice from 7:49-8:01 Moondyne (not MODCHK) has been speed-RE-validating Vanity Fair, the very work that the FIRST of the three examined editors had been speed-validating in the previous Administrators' Noticeboard block discussions.

I also observe that Moondyne had speed-edited "Spirella Corsets" and speed-validated "Vanity Fair" on the 29th as well.

I also observe from 7:56-8:01 Shakespearefan00, the SECOND of the three examined editors that had been speed-validated in the previous Administrators' Noticeboard block discussions chooses this time of day, and only this time of day, to make three edits. He is to only make eight edits between March 17 and April 3.

I look at a few of Moondyne's speed validations and observe one of these rather long pages at 8:00, page 535 Page:Vanity Fair 1848.djvu/627 was validated with two capital letters incorrect.

8:21: I write on Moondyne's user page: "You misvalidated two wrong capital letters on page 535. You should spend more time validating each page to make sure they are correct."

9:31: Moondyne corrects the two validation errors.

9:32: Moondyne replies to me on his user page: "Thanks, willdo."

The presence of these misvalidations that were, so to speak, clones of the speed-validations given administrative attention in the previous Administrative Noticeboard block discussion, combined with one of the misvalidators being present as well as the pagename of two of Shakespearefan00's edits during the time window I mentioned (Index:A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, Volume 2 (1903).djvu), the Talmud being a book I mentioned twice earlier in the month, alert me to the possibility that I was being followed and that Wikisource was being subjected to minor vandalism for the purpose of carrying out the intention of causing me as much irritation as possible—namely by signaling their knowledge of my recent presence together with the presentation of a situation that suggested that the previous lengthy administrative proceeding I had assisted in had been to no avail. Further—this possibility being drawn out into a hypothetical situation–if I had lost my temper with Moondyne, Shakespearefan00 could claim "He had just happened to be there before it happened and could prove it by the recent changes summary" and report it and would effect a dramatic reversal of previous roles, the (as it turned out, voluntarily overruled, in the previous case) blocker now becoming the object of an adminstrative action caused by the former blockee, likely to attract a great deal of attention. Or—again in this hypothetical situation—if I had lost my temper and realized in a flash the situation I had just described, and that I couldn't take it out on Moondyne and wished to, it would have made me even angrier.

Jewish literature was something that Shakespearefan00 rarely edited in his voluminous contributions, which is a presentable fact which would have helped in a new report on Shakespearefan00 and Moondyne, but in writing this account yesterday, it took me ten minutes to learn this, and it would have taken ten minutes back then, and might have been a fool's errand. It would be inappropriate for me to launch an investigation every time I was teased with minor vandalism. And by presenting a full report I might have been regarded by the casual administrator or observer as preoccupied with the subject of speed validations, Shakespearefan00 or minor vandalism. Also there was no pattern of behavior I could point to, just one incident.

But the incident would act to put me more on alert to future incidents involving speed validation whether they were causally-linked to this one or only coincidentally-linked, or, what was much more likely, not provable either way. ResScholar (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed — I shall say disgusted — to be reading these baseless slurs against Moondyne. Moondyne has not "speed-validated", nor "speed-edited", nor engaged in "minor vandalism"; nor, in ten years of working with him, have I ever observed Moondyne to do anything expressly to cause irritation to another person. Like all of us, Moondyne occasionally overlooks a typo. I regard Moondyne as more thorough in his validation than myself, so I guess I'll be the next person to be outed as a speed-validator. Hesperian 11:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! I can only guess that I've been drawn into this discussion to deflect some heat. Although I have in the past, I dont generally watch this page or many user talk pages so need to do some reading to come up to speed as to what this is all about. First impression is that I'm considered to be a net-negative to the project. I feel gutted. I'm not even sure whether I should waste my time doing that reading or defending myself. For that I'm pissed off also. But I'll respond later. Moondyne (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Moondyne, no need to read, you personally are not under consideration for any wrong doing by the community. Jeepday (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Am I reading this right: MODCHK has left the project? This is a train-wreck. Moondyne (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what MODCHK’s status is, they have occasional issues with connection, and they are a bit upset. I still maintain hope that we can get out of this mess without loosing anyone else. Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from saying that I'm hurt by, and reject the insinuation that I'm a serial "speed-validator" and have engaged in "minor vandalism", I've decided to leave this for you guys to resolve. This issue is clearly not about me and I have no desire to inflame the situation by responding further to the ridiculous and mostly incomprehensible rant above. Good luck friends. Moondyne (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Question - I post here because I do not want to go behind anyone's back. In reference to these alleged speed-validations by MODCHK (not anyone else) I would like to know if there were many errors left after the alleged speed-validations or were the validations accurate. If there were errors then how many pages were there left with mistakes in a row? I have not seen the alleged speed-validations (has anyone else?) thus I do not know where they are, if they exist, or existed, and whether or not they have been corrected. Where is any proof? The burden of proof rests with the prosecutor not the defendant. —Maury (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

All I have got to say is "Oh my giddy aunt". When you are in a hole, stop digging. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's "All" you have to say? Okay, in reply, I wish to state that situation would depend upon who is in what kind of hole and what they are digging for, i.e. in desert digging for water or in the great California Gold Rush? Is your "giddy" aunt "giddy" from drinking something other than noon-time tea? It's an interesting expression whatever it means. —Maury (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Basic considerations of fairness: Things I don't know

Hesperian: When I say speed-validating I generally simply mean validating at rate faster than a page a minute. There is no imputation of wrong-doing in this sense of speed-validating. When I see someone do it (which is rarely) however, it raises doubts in my mind as to their carefulness. Sometimes, as in the case of Widux, I am pleasantly surprised at how quickly they can accurately validate. (By the way your rehearsal of my self-overturned block of his in the block summary of the ResidentScholar section of the Administrative Noticeboard contains an error. I never blocked Widux for any sort of validation concerns.) Why do you assume it was a slur? And why does Billinghurst say, when you are in a hole, stop digging?

By speed-editing I mean editing at a pace of greater than a page a minute. Again—no imputation of wrong-doing. The only reason I mentioned the term is to describe the manner in which I was attracted to looking at Moondyne's edits. Why do you assume it was a slur?

As a brief side-note: In the previous block discussions I was hectored until I provided a much-desired synopsis of speed-validations. An adminstrative decision was rendered on the basis of this synopsis. Here, I was nearly hectored again to produce a synopsis this time by imputations of inaccuracy, and when I began to provide the background I was roundly laughed at. Why the difference?

The pages of the Vanity Fair index are rather long pages, likely to take longer than a minute. When Moondyne carelessly takes less than a minute validating the page and leaves—not one but two—not lowercase but capital—letters uncorrected, how is this not minor vandalism by carelessness regardless of whether he intended to affront me, but especially while assuming the same posture as one of the adminstratively documented vandals (by virtue of losing of control of the account) who was given a second chance in the last Administrators' Noticeboard block discussions?

You say "you'll be next outed as a speed-validator". Doesn't that trivialize what is a genuine and easily detectable and resolvable problem on Wikisource? Doesn't that trivialize the offense of harrassment? Does Distributed Proofreaders, the proofreading source for Project Gutenberg, tolerate two large errors per page? ResScholar (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't believe that any of the sentences above that end with question marks are genuine questions about things you don't know. To me they present as rhetorical devices for changing the subject and obfuscating the issue. I am now satisfied that (a) you are completely out of touch with community norms on blocking other community members; and (b) you are incapable of seriously reflecting on this fact. As such, this discussion no longer serves me any purpose. I shall read any response you might choose to make to this message, but aside from that I am now withdrawing from this discussion. Hesperian 06:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hang on, this is no way to handle a dispute. The issue here of quality of proofing obviously cuts deep. As also the issue that a community on a wiki has to operate as a voluntary organisation. Which means we do person-management as well as guidelines. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

ResidentScholar's record of MODCHK's activity

On the 28th Jeepday claimed on my User Talk page “That I made a snap judgement, without regard to established expectations.” He adds: “Your continued insistence on attempting to defend your actions rather then realize, they are indefensible just adds the problem.”

Actually Jeepday's insistence that I made a snap judgment that can’t be defended is itself a snap judgment, since I haven’t described it yet. Unless he is insisting that a four hour block based on the evidence that MODCHK didn’t even know had happened is too onerous on MODCHK and the rest of the community even to describe.

So if he thinks that is the case this description will just make Jeepday probably mistrust my judgment even more.

I offered to give this analysis of what I observed of MODCHK's behavior upon Billinghurst's granting me the assumption of good faith. I'm sorry I couldn't do it more quickly, but it took the form a cumbersome series of events that kept piling up until I felt I had to act.

This record, beginning April 22, 2013, presents MODCHK's actions that I found suspicious—in their original sometime innocuous context. Except where indicated that he stopped editing altogether at certain points, he would also engage in other innocuous editing that I didn't record.

April 22, 0:56 I proofread a page

2:33, 2:38, 2:41 MODCHK Validates three pages of The Warden

2:45 I proofread a page

2:52-2:56 MODCHK speed-validates some pages of The Warden then stops editing

3:47 I proofread a page

4:14-4:35, I proofread three pages

5:40-6:09 MODCHK speed-validates a series of pages of The Warden then stops editing (* The next day I found two pages with errors on these fairly short pages *)

8:39 I proofread a page

9:19 I proofread a page

9:33-9:58 MODCHK speed-validates a series of pages of The Warden then stops editing again.

April 22, about between 9:00 and 10:00, I notice the speed-validating being done by MODCHK. Speed-validating presents an exceptional situation to me, an almost sure sign of too rapid validation. But as I said above, there is no imputation of wrong-doing in the name speed-validating—it doesn't refer to the quality of the work. I don't notice the medium-sized correlation (two out of three) of his edits of the same work following closely in time after my edits; if they had followed according to a slightly greater correlation, I could claim today that it would seem probable he was following me.

I briefly wonder if MODCHK has joined with Moondyne to perform a voluntarily conspicuous display of careless editing. But I have no proof of it. MODCHK is a more familiar name to me than Moondyne; I remember MODCHK from some technical or administrative activities on the Wiki. But I don't really want to confront MODCHK. My familiarity with his user name in these settings persuades me to give him greater allowance, and I hope that he had only lost his temper tonight and would go back and fix the errors, if any, when he cooled down. I think that by confronting him, it would embarrass him, and if I happened to give him a sort of check while he was running through a rough patch in his life, it may cause him to lose his temper more later on.

April 22, 20:26, I proofread a page

20:51 MODCHK starts editing again, again, The Warden

21:54 MODCHK speed validates two pages of The Warden

22:10-12 MODCHK speed validates three pages of The Warden then stops editing

April 23

1:09 MODCHK starts editing again.

1:53-2:15 MODCHK speed validates The Warden then stops editing. (* Later in the day I find two pages with errors on these fairly short pages *)

5:05: MODCHK validates a page of The Warden

5:06: MODCHK validates seven pages of The Warden in one minute. (* Later in the day I find one page with an error on these fairly short pages *)

5:07: MODCHK validates two pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:08: MODCHK validates four pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:11: MODCHK validates five pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:29: MODCHK validates four pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:30: MODCHK validates three pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:31: MODCHK validates three pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:32: MODCHK validates a page of The Warden.

5:33: MODCHK validates three pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:34: MODCHK validates two pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:35: MODCHK validates three pages of The Warden in one minute.

5:36: MODCHK validates the last page of The Warden.

5:43: MODCHK writes on Beeswaxcandle's talkpage, third section from the bottom, referring to a typographical technical innovation he used, "(I have finished the validation; but will not mark the work as 'Done' in case you recoil [because of the typographical technical innovation].)"

This later indicates to me

1. The edits were voluntary and not the work of a runaway bot that was operating without MODCHK's knowledge.

2. That though there is no urgency in continuing this particular discussion on Beeswaxcandle's page in which he has decided to reply, he makes use of it, seven minutes after having performed his validations and before someone would be expected to be able to block his account for fear it is hosting a runaway bot, to convey his understanding that he considers his very rapid validations are being done at a suitable speed with no need of further checking.)

5:43: MODCHK stops editing.

6:56-7:08: I make some edits.

April 23, about 7:20, I notice some of MODCHK’s speed-validations and remember his speed-validations I overlooked from the previous day. I inspect the list of validations and wonder what is going on.

I look at one of the edits and then check the Index page. I see the work is The Warden (1855) by Anthony Trollope (1815-1882), a famous 19th century novelist like Thackeray (1811-1863), the author of Vanity Fair (1848). I see the work is also a novel. I wonder if this speed-validation of The Warden is a copycat of User:The Bible in Metre’s and possibly of Moondyne’s speed-validation of The Warden, in the same vein of signaling my previous lengthy administrative actions had been of no avail.

I briefly inspect the works further, and they seem to me to be the most rapid speed-validations I have seen. MODCHK hasn’t been there for an hour-and-a-half, so I am not able to ask him about the validations; so I am convinced that time is of the essence, and I must immediately go to discern if I can, if these validations are properly-done but rapid, performed without any corrections being made, or at least somewhere in between.

I take a brief look at Beeswaxcandle’s user talk page before I begin, where MODCHK has left a message, but it’s third from the bottom section, and I can’t find it quickly. I decide to look at the DIFF on Beeswaxcandle’s user talk page instead, and read the comment: “(I have finished the validation; but will not mark the work as “Done” in case you recoil.)” I forget that validated works are marked “Done—All pages of the work proper are validated”, and mistakenly think by “mark[ing] the work as ‘Done’” he means placing it on the New Texts list. The reason I don’t associate “validation” with “Done” is that I am in a hurry and probably because the DIFF text display is narrow and happened to display the two words on separate lines.

I examine the speed-validations and start to find errors. MODCHK made 126 of what I consider to be speed-validations (validations done at a rate of more than one a minute) on the Warden and I eventually re-proofread a total of 29 of them. After I find three errors, I decide to keep looking just to make sure. He seems to miss most often when there is a lot of punctuation on the page, so to save time I target my search and find two more errors. So, projecting, it appears about one for every ten to twelve of the fairly short pages of The Warden that MODCHK had speed-validated contains an error.

7:43:MODCHK makes an edit.

10:00 (approx.): I finish revalidating and look at Recent changes for other users. I see that I had missed MODCHK, and he hadn’t edited in 2½ hours. Then there were two administrators who I knew were familiar with the previous blocking cases. Billinghurst hadn’t edited in 2½ hours, and Beeswaxcandle hadn’t edited in 1½ hours, so I can’t consult with them. On the other hand, for the reason I am about to give, I don't find a block of MODCHK really that controversial anymore.

I look again at MODCHK’s validations and see that at 5:11 he validated five pages in a minute. It occurred to me that not only were the validations rapid and sometimes inaccurate, but over the course of two days their speed was "escalating", and that it would be irresponsible of me not to perform a preventative block.

Later MODCHK claimed that he had begun semi-automating his validations to compensate for frequent gaps in his internet access. At the time I was not aware of this claim. Instead it appeared that he was echoing the vandal who had misused The Bible in Metre’s account: The speed-validating (with errors), the communication of the voluntariness of the speed-validating, the similarities of the authors’ birth dates, their genre (novels), their fame; the publication date of the novels and the rapid tendering of the validated work as a new text, (later found to be only offered as a Done-validated text but with similar rapidity).

Together with the previous action of Moondyne, it appeared that a three-time pattern of speed-validating that accompanied an attempt to repeat the behavior of User:The Bible in Metre had occurred. Along with the escalation of speed-validating this pattern seemed to me to suggest the possibility of spiteful intentions.

Because I had never heard of anyone using the semi-automated process MODCHK later described, because I didn’t see that seven validations had taken place in a minute at 5:06, and because of the pattern of speed-validating behavior among the two editors (Moondyne, MODCHK and then MODCHK the next day) and pattern of similarity between MODCHK and The Bible in Metre I just mentioned seem so vivid to me, it doesn’t even occur to me that MODCHK is using a bot, once I see his casual response to his editing which demonstrated his account hadn't been seized by the actions of a runaway bot.

But regardless, as far as I know the unauthorized use of a bot is considered disruptive and for that reason grounds for a preventative block. On the other hand, I wasn’t aware of rules concerning semi-automation and might have asked someone about them before blocking. Despite the other patterns that concerned me, had that possibility of the use of semi-automation occurred to me, I might have asked, since the immediate concern of escalating speed-validation would not have seemed so pressing had I been given to understand semi-automation as an accepted practice.

I was conscious of the negative impact the block might have on a long-standing user, but I also didn’t know the extent of damage speed validation could cause, especially if escalated further; I had earlier asked on the Administrative Noticeboard if there was rapid way of rolling back a user’s edits on multiple pages but got no reply. And unfortunately inaccuracies performed by a user in one area also casts doubt on the quality of other edits that that user made in other capacities and calls for, at the least, time for a brief investigation.

We also don't want to think a person would suddenly turn to more damaging types of edits, but the patterns I pointed out above were to some degree as unexpected as a movement towards damaging edits.

I knew MODCHK to be an established user and generous contributor from his userpage and was confused as to why MODCHK seemed like he wanted his editing record detracted from by a block.

I visited his talk page for clues and saw the "1000th validated index" contributor announcement placed by Adam four days earlier on his talk page and wondered if he was celebrating in an overly-boisterous way. Allowing myself a moment for stepping out of these mere descriptions of facts, let me ask you, is it too far-fetched to expect him to have on one of the four previous days, on a whim, decided to enthusiastically set off to work with the notion of taking the first step toward validating another thousand indexes? Or at least as many indexes as to make a definite impact on Wikisource? And then to pursue that course too rapidly?

10:28: For the reasons given above, I administer the two-week block to MODCHK's account with the reason: "Disruptive editing: Speed-validated on at least two occasions; claims didn't post results as new text only due to a technical issue"—the second part of this statement only partially true, he only wanted to mark it Done-validated for the reasons given at the "March 23, about 7:20" entry above, paragraph four.

Nobody asked for my blocking philosophy for what appears to be vandalism, but I will give it anyway: I think it takes about a week to determine if the performer of the vandalism, if it is in fact vandalism, has cooled down and to be able to be sure they understand the injury they are inflicting and that if they try to destroy parts of Wikisource they will be prevented through removal from access to those same parts.

10:31: I report the block on the Administrative Noticeboard, fairly inconspicuously, but in a place likely to be seen by my fellow administrators who visit fairly regularly, whose opinion I hope to solicit.

So that it doesn't get separated from this account, I wish to add that despite the five errors I find on 29 fairly short speed-validated pages, MODCHK told Jeepday on April 24 on his User talk page after being asked about twelve of these rapid edits where the page is recorded as validated:

• that he had "properly validated" the twelve specific validations at "reasonable leisure", but he declines to address any of his other 114 speed-validations.
• that he is "angry not only on his own behalf but on that of colleagues who have left [the] project under near identical circumstances" but names none.

Then

• asks if it is the desire of others that he leave, and
• challenges Jeepday to tell him "how much so-called 'analysis' went into [ResidentScholar's] decision before blocking him [MODCHK]," asking "Any at all? None?"

Finally I want to say that I regret the error of memory in placing on the blocking notice of MODCHK what I incorrectly claimed about MODCHK, namely the claim that he had stated his intention was to place The Warden on New Texts, but that he had only been stopped by a technical issue. What was rather the case, was that he had stated his intention was to mark The Warden as validated, but that he had only been stopped by a technical issue. (See "March 23, about 7:20" entry above, paragraph four.)

The reason I had mentioned it was that putting the speed-validated Vanity Fair (which contained errors) on New Texts was something that the person who took over The Bible in Metre’s account (according to Beeswaxcandle, later described by The Bible in Metre as his roommate) had done, and I wanted to point out the similarity between the actions of the two users. But I now wish to state for the record that this public posting of a text (produced by rapid editing together with a validation marking) onto the main page (in the New Texts section) that this mistaken claim referred to, was indeed something that, at the time, MODCHK had not done nor stated an intention of doing. ResScholar (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• When you say "validates X pages", do you mean "saved changes to X pages are recorded on the Wikisource Servers"? 11:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC) —unsigned comment by Jeepday (talk) .
  • Would my edits between 12:12, 5 May 2013 and 12:13, 5 May 2013, similarly require a block? I did after all create 2 author pages [4] [5], proofread 4 pages [6] [7] [8] [9], and make random edits to 3 other pages [10] [11] [12] . Given the volume of edits, without consideration of the speed, if you look hard enough pretty sure you will find a mistake or two. Jeepday (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So, ResidentScholar, are you admitting here that you:

1. Falsified the reason given in the block action (Sorry, your words: "regret the error of memory in placing on the blocking notice of MODCHK what I incorrectly claimed about MODCHK"), and
2. Found numerous errors in my validations which you omitted to turn into actual corrections.

I find the second of these completely unforgivable. Forget any other issue. Your (lack of) action utterly condemns you in my personal view. I see no evidence of goodwill here. MODCHK (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Resident Scholar. I am truly disappointed with your narrative above. To me it seems to becoming a scrambling attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The community initially accepted that you were acting in good faith, we just didn't agree with your assessment, and I didn't agree with your actions. Your interpretations of opinions and comments seem to me to be a narrow view through prism, totally one-dimensional and not understanding a community member enjoying some banter. The 1000th work is an address by a renowned figure in Australian history, in a place of significance in early Australian colonial history. I am completely NOT surprised that another Australian would see it and complete the validation process. It is an achievement to bring up that work, and Adam even announced it to the community. Have some fun, and enjoy. I am surprised you still focusing on this issue; most of us have taken our bruises and are getting on with transcriptions and other necessary tasks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Resident Scholar

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

• immediate issue managed, self-imposed restraint in place; time for the community to reflect.
• Issues undertaken for respective administrators can be raised at their confirmations

— billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Folks,

I think we need to come to grips with the difficult question of Resident Scholar's administrative actions around speed validation. Specifically, there have been

• Blocks on ShakespeareFan00 and his alternative account Sfan00 IMG for mass validation. My estimate of consensus in that case was (a) ShakespeareFan's edits were problematic; (b) no clear consensus on the initial block — some felt it was legitimately preventative, others felt that it was too hasty and that it should not have been resorted to until further attempts at discussion had been made; (c) consensus that the subsequent escalation of blocks was inappropriate.
• Block on The Bible in Metre for speed validation. Same consensus as above: The Bible in Metre's edits were problematic, but there was no discussion and they were denied due process.
• Block on Widux for speed validation. Community consensus that this was completely wrong. Resident Scholar subsequently acknowledged error, stated that he was deceived by unfortunate coincidence, and apologised. Widux exited the community with parting shot "There is clearly 'something rotten in Denmark' and I certainly do not wish to remain a part of a community which finds such behaviour unremarkable."
• Block on MODCHK for speed validation. Community consensus is that this was completely wrong, in terms of both factual basis and procedural fairness.

Personally, I believe that Resident Scholar's actions are damaging our community. I grant that they are a good faith effort to improve the quality of our validation product, but I think they do untold harm to our culture. I believe there is a pattern, and I don't want us to wait until 'next time' before we take action to break that pattern. Jeepday previously stated on Widux's talk page: "We as a group of volunteers failed, what we allowed to happen was wrong. We are attempting to learn from the event and preventing it from occurring again." In my view we did not learn from that incident what we needed to learn, and we have again failed by allowing something similar to happen again.

So: questions for the community, and of course for Resident Scholar:

1. Is there a damaging pattern here?
2. If so, how do we break out of it?

Hesperian 14:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I note above it has been pointed out that Resident Scholar agrees not to apply further blocks prior to next admin confirmation. I had not noticed this. This may suffice the community as the answer to 2. above, in which case I would be happy to see this closed as unnecessary drama. Hesperian 14:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The community needs time to breathe. Act in haste, regret in leisure. I am closing this, though request that suggestions for a good culture are always warranted. Each of us can look to see how we can improve the culture. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Tumblr

I've created a general administrator account on Tumblr for the English Wikisource tumblblog. (The latest post on Scriptorium reminded me to do this.) The details can be read in the deleted page here: Wikisource:WikiProject Social media/Tumblr/password (so only admins can see it). Please note that the e-mail address currently attached to this account is one of my personal e-mail addresses (that I mostly use for related mailing lists and accounts I want to keep separate from others). If there is a better one available, it should be changed to that instead. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource site administration basics

While I can appreciate the various recent efforts to better market Wikisource via the latest social network or app, its sort of putting the cart before the horse imo. Although "we" are labeled Adminstrators, we hardly do any actual site administration (think Web Master here) if any at all.

That said, the first priority should have been to get basics in order before moving on to the available tangets of today. That use to mean hitting all three major search engines (shows how out dated I've become - Google is the only one that matters now) and optimizing the crawl, etc. for better rankings and the like.

Google's Web Master Tools would be the place to start but site administration verification requires some doing beyond my pay grade in this case. There are multiple ways to "prove" an account is indeed associated with a site's adminstration, but the way I've always seen it done would require a Hash/MD5-type of key to be embedded in the HTML of our Main Page somehow - (what actually is the "main page" remains in question thanks to the usurption of the normal naming scheme for continued use by old.wikisource). Ideas? Comments? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

One would think that WMF would already have the tools for this sort of thing. Have you asked someone like Philippe to see to whom we could talk about getting the stats. One thinks someone like Erik from stats.wikimedia.org. Though my one attempt to have a conversation met with silence. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'WMF would already have the tools for this sort of thing.' The point here is to optimize "the way" Google recognizes various aspects of the [en]wikisource.org domain & it's contents and then the manner/method those aspects can be translated into something Google's alogorithm(s) can consistently apply (hopefully increasing our exposure and rankings world-web-wide in the process).

All the stats that I've ever seen concerning Wiki-anything were internally generated (save one seriously outdated & now-restricted ranking by Alexa). All those stats n' stuff are interesting but not very useful in shaping external trends and forces (like Google search). I could be wrong but the fact that that Wikipedia is already ranked in the 'top 10 most ______ sites' in the world based primarily on the amount of click-in traffic & parsed-out content alone makes me think nobody at WMF has ever bothered with something like simple WebMaster "duties" (nevermind the fact "we" aren't selling or promoting anything like the typical commercial web-site).

Still, if one of those folks has access to official email, that might open an additional avenue to securing verified site asscociation - inserting the Google provided "key" as a meta tag in our main page's header (just like the one that adds - Wikisource, the free online library at the end of each page title for example.... and that's done thru MediaWiki messages if I remember right) is the only method I was remotely familar with. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

GO3, but we do have access to info@wikisource.org, it is our address for all the WSes through the OTRS. Just need to remember that it will be all the interlanguage/sub-domains that one would be fiddling. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I spoke too soon on the email thing - see below - there is nothing that be accomplished on that front it seems. Besides, the "umbrella" approach covering all the various languages by a select few defeats the point of targeted tweaking (I have no flippin' clue whats best for the Russian wikisource just as "they" won't know what is best for en.WS).

I'm still leaning towards the inclusion of a meta-tag via some MW message setting as the best possible solution here. That way, each sister languange could then modify their own MediaWiki message setting to access their own stuff if and when anyone cares to. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Progress?

I thought I found the old meta marker for Google in the restoration of MediaWiki:Googlesearch, but I have yet to "see" anything materialize either in the underlying HTML or on any of the mw-skins (then again - we did away with the original Main Page framework so who knows how much additional local coding needs to be "revived" in order for that appellate to "appear" as it once did [if it ever did that is]). There are a few more "Google" related system messages but they seem to deal with creating an .rss feed somewhere out there or something.

At any rate, here is a pretty good summary of what site authentication entails....

Site Verification Because privacy is important to Google, we need to know you own a site before we'll show you certain information about it or enable you to use our tools. Verification doesn't affect your site's performance in Google's search results. Why verify your site? Once you've verified your ownership of your site, you'll be able to: See Google data for your site in Webmaster Tools, so you can diagnose potential problems and improve the quality of your site. Add and manage other site owners Tell Google when your site URL changes Remove sitelinks from Google search results Tell Google how you prefer your site to be indexed Specify the geographic region targeted by your site Request a change in Google's crawl rate. How to verify your site To verify that you own a site, you have a number of options. You can: Add a meta tag to your home page (proving that you have access to the source files). To use this method, you must be able to edit the HTML code of your site's pages. Upload an HTML file with the name you specify to your server. To use this method, you must be able to upload new files to your server. Verify via your domain name provider. To use this method, you must be able to sign in to your domain name provider (for example, GoDaddy.com or networksolutions.com) or hosting provider and add a new DNS record. Add the Google Analytics code you use to track your site. To use this option, you must be an administrator on the Google Analytics account, and the tracking code must use the new asynchronous snippet. Webmaster Tools will check to see that the specified tag, file, record, or code is present. If it is, we consider you a site owner and will show you site details. We don't use the verification file we ask you to create for any purpose other than to make sure you can upload files to the site. Read more about our commitment to privacy in the Google Privacy Policy. If you access Webmaster Tools via a web hoster, your site is already verified, and all your information is already available to you. If you created a new site using Google Sites, that site will now appear verified in Webmaster Tools. (Your site must be created using the same Google Account you use for Webmaster Tools.) If your site doesn't appear on the Webmaster Tools home page, click Add a site. Your site will be added and automatically verified. However, older sites are not automatically verified, and should be verified using the meta tag method. updated 01/24/2013

If simple stuff like this isn't already being handled by someone somewhere in the WMF, there is no excuse for it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Big sites like Wikimedia don't use Google Web Master Tools. That would be like the President of the United States applying online for a passport... and dropping into the post office for a 2x2 photo... and then waiting four to six weeks. No, Web Master Tools is for the little guys; the big guys like Wikimedia have other, better, channels for interacting and integrating with Google. Hesperian 13:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

LoL! ...from the guy who pointed out WikiSource's entry for E.E. Cummings was more than a dozen pages back, farther than even WikiQuote's was, in Google's search results to boot! Thanks - that was a classic, I'll play along however...

Where can I find evidence of this ongoing refinement of the interactions & integrations between these two on-line giants as it relates specifically to the lil' ol' memory hole known as WikiSource? I'd be satisfied by being provided with some comparable [& recent] analytics on externally generated traffic and such - but either will do I suppose. And what do you think the chances are of any site crawler being all screwed up by [old].wikisource's unusual deviation from the standard Wikimedia naming scheme? Your statement would infer such an obvious customization would have been taken care of long ago by that interaction "group", no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I never said we were using our channels well; I just said WMF will have better channels. Sorry to be pouring cold water on what is an admirable goal, but I think (a) there is zero chance of us getting access to site administrative tools through Google Web Master Tools; (b) your only access to site administration will be via bugzilla requests. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. Hesperian 00:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No harm; No foul.... and I expected as much but had to go through the steps to make the realities here clear enough for anyone still operating with some belief contrary to it to draw their own revised conclusions.

So enjoy the latest social Facebutt or Rumblins craze if it means something personal or tangible for you in your non-Ws life - stuff like that will barely make a dent in resolving our most well known (& yet-to-be known) issues concerning Ws.

Just to be clear - because it seems like you only glanced at the project - Google "WebMaster Tools", or however they are marketing it this week, are just watered down Google Analytics. All you get by participating is general advice based on their internal numbers for any given domain/site; and most of that is tailored only for the most basic of mutual concerns (i.e. traffic generated by search results) at best. Nothing done "over there" directly affects anything "over here" - its all about knowing what Google typically "looks for" in a site's make-up (for our manipulation/incorporation if so desired) and in return we "fill in" any gaps or oddities about our site so they can in turn refine & optimize their formulas and junk(for "better" search result$).

A simple illustration of the exchange of information that could take place most likely would start with our "main page". Technically, it hasn't been modified since Feb. 28 according to some string somewhere in the wikiworld that automatically generates that info at the bottom of our main page. It's been rendered like that for so long now that its not hard to image that string somewhere out there in cyberspace is what Google's crawl has trained itself to look for every time it comes though here. We all know that the content on our main page changes several times in a month - sometimes just in weeks or even in days. Well if Google's dopey algorithm is basing its refresh schedule on some remnant string from long ago and has really nothing to do with the current realities of that page's frequency, someone could easily inform the folks at Google on that. The Google group then offers up the most common alternatives it looks for after this time-stamp nuance has been made clear to them and then its up to us whether or not we follow their advice. Even if we do nothing to change that last mod date's availability, we've still increased the chances of throwing the crawl back into a "seek & learn mode" instead of automatically applying the [outdated] default command to search for that particular learned string.

I know, I know.... overly simplistic, completely watered down and done without any of the the proper terminology, so lets not confuse the matter by additional critiques on my most basic of illustrations. For any of the rest of you out there still reading along - go look for the same modification time-stamp at the bottom of the English Wikipedia's main page. You shouldn't find one (under Vector at least) and, in theory, maybe Google's crawl has moved on to detect the proper keys or tokens concerning the true last mod date for that main page instead. Once again, Wikisource fails where Wikipedia manages to unconsciously succeed. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I only glanced at this thread, guilty as charged. But I administer a couple of personal websites, so am familiar Google Webmaster Tools. Hesperian 10:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily leaving some of the "Ntsamr" spam

The spam like Special:Undelete/User:DirkNJC is spambot stuff, and this lot is has the abbreviation Ntsamr. I am trying to get some abuse filters up for it, however, we are very good at deleting it quickly. Problem there is that when is undeleted one cannot test against it (reason unknown). If it is at all possible, can we leave some of that around for testing purposes. Please let me know if you are doing so. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to BWC for the preserved example. There is now filter 27 there now for it. If things slip through, feel free to edit or to leave it in place and let me know. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• New re-creation today

  I don't know much about this kind of tag/spam - the User name seems familiar however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  False positive, well-known. I have reduced edit count on filter, and will look further at another time. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)