Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 4,349,518
No. of articles = 1,051,815
No. of files = 16,322
No. of edits = 14,278,786

---

No. of pages in Main = 608,499
No. of pages in Page: = 3,256,826
No. validated in Page: = 645,511
No. proofread in Page: = 1,257,297
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,060,636
No. problematic in Page: = 44,562
No. of validated works = 6,441
No. of proofread only works = 6,358
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 399,162
% transcluded pages in Main = 65.60
Σ pages in Main

---

No. of users = 3,130,380
No. of active users = 396
No. of group:autopatrolled = 501
No. in group:sysop = 23
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 17

Statistics
User preference statistics
Special:Statistics

Checkuser notification

Log

Users	Results
222.127.160.0/21	Crosswiki spam as discussed on checkuser-l. Eleccigar1203 in range, local spam page already deleted and account locked. No other local activity. —Pathoschild 22:53:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sdaufoiagewqhseudh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Sdaufoiagewqhseudhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Dealt with by KathleenWright5 #Vandalism spree. Drivel on pages harvested via RC. West coast USA. Details noted. Billinghurst (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Returned today from the same spot, dealt with by Cygnis insignis. I have hard-blocked the IP, so if they come back soon it means that it is a dynamic IP address, and we can reblock and re-evaluate. Billinghurst (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Gedgey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	edits have been reverted. Billinghurst (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dantherocker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)/ Oops I Pooped My Pants / XXxBeAuTiFuLnIGhTmArExXx /Asgfjagshdfgahsdgfahsgdfaaskj / Ballsmahoney365 / -emo rocker for life-	All the same person, will start cleaning up after finished documenting, and having a look at how problematic elsewhere.
Shnwilson25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	links to movie P4V site, now blacklisted. Blocked by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
HEllison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked, cleaned up and checked — billinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Realafrica14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked, cleaned, reported to stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Iamroberts‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked by GOIII, from Filipino ISP, notified stewards of account and of the url. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Mm1827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked by GOIII, Chinese language browser, Chinese IP address. Bored Chinese teenager? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Creditcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Spam. Deleted pages, and stewards managing url. Looking at the history, seems like a range with a spamhaus sitting in behind. I have put an extended hard range block on a small IP range. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Contourbeltabcontour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Spamming url, one of our more recent Philippine-based spamming organisations. Placed a small hard-IP block for a couple of months. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Casino232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) + Auto02 + Scales12 + Mortgagecomparison	All spam from the same IP address over week plus. Blocking IP. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Nsxtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked by GOIII for url spam, from .pk domain, nothing else on the /24. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Powerloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) + Breakearth + Dramamost + Rocksaid + Daysdays + Wheelwatch + I'm done.. I wanna quit + Kittiesonfire!	Cross-wiki vandal, per request from Matanya (talk • contribs). - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Agentsan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	spam here and at enWP. Cleaned by Beeswaxcandle. Checked and blocked by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

action by a steward

I did a CU here. local CU please contact me for details. Matanya (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User	diff/time	page	comment
Matanya	15:23, 11 July 2011	talk:Zhaladshar	"urget request. : please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:26, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	"urgent request. : please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:35, " "	talk:Theornamentalist	"urgent request. : please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:36, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	"urgent request. : as a steward, I need an admin ASAP. [insert] please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:38, " "	talk:Zhaladshar	":Thanks for reply, sending full details in few seconds."
Tarmstro99	15:38, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	":I'm not a steward, sorry.
Matanya	15:45, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	"::I am, but user Zhaladshar had contacted me. thanks anyway."
Matanya	15:49, " "	Administrators' noticeboard [above]	"I did a CU here. local CU please contact me for details."
Theornamentalist	16:12 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	"Hey Matanya, I got your message, I can help. If it is a pricate matter send it to my email.
Theornamentalist	16:30 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	[Minor edit. Spelling: private]
Meta: Matanya	16:33 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	:"Thanks, I have sent to details to user:Zhaladshar but it seems he didn't do much about it. if you can please make it happen, I'll appreciate it. best"
Theornamentalist	16:54 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	"::did you send anything to me? I am unsure what you are asking for"
Meta: Matanya	17:02 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	":::"I FW it to you."
Theornamentalist	Block 17:14 11 July 2011	Powerloan	"Abusing multiple accounts: long term cross-wiki abuser"

From talk:Theornamentalist

as a steward, I need an admin ASAP. please contact me privately. Matanya (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please document what happened here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure; I did not do this initially for potential privacy concerns, but it was in regard to a someone using sock puppets and vandalizing. Powerloan (talk • contribs) was one of them. Others were listed, but the accounts do not exist here, so I've only blocked that one. The others, Breakearth, Dramamost, Rocksaid, Daysdays, Wheelwatch and Kittiesonfire, I will log into the Admin board soon - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

When do you intend to do that? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done; I have been busy this week Cygnis. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Compiled by CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was unaware that this was what was needed; thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To note that I dealt with CU issues in my mailbox around this when I returned a day ago; it was contained then, and was completed by me yesterday. I can confirm that Matanya did indeed undertake local CU checks on the vandal (I'm done.. I wanna quit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)) and the underlying IP address, it supported other wiki investigation for a known crosswiki vandal, usually exhibited here on edits to Talk:Main Page. I am not sure where the other CUs are currently on this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

Cswikisource-bot

When needed, I use him on other projects than my home cs.wikisource only in semi-manual mode (with -confirm switch) for interwiki linking – see contributions. He works on pywikipediabot framework. On Czech, German, Polish and Russian Wikisource he is already flagged as bot. If you prefer no flood on recent changes while he sometimes edits interwikis, please give him appropriate flag. Thx. --Milda (talk on cs:) 08:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User rename requested

I want to have my user name changed from "Snake311" to "A7x". This is to maintain consistency with my other user accounts. —§ stay (sic)! 10:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Usurpation request

I'd like to usurp account User:Sergei with zero edits for SUL purposes. My home account is ru:w:User:Sergei.--Sergei2 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

usurp User:Joy

Hi there. I noticed you added this page to meta:Index of pages where renaming can be requested, thank you for doing that! Hopefully I used the right section for this request - please link this section from the index if so.

I'm trying to get a unified account - see en:Joy/SUL - and there's an old, unused account on this wiki that is called the same way. Can you please move it away?

Last time when I asked about this, User:John Vandenberg confirmed the en.wikisource Joy account is mine or something of the sort, so this looks like a no-brainer now.

It also looks to me now that this wiki had imported one of my old en: edits (it's a stub sorting item, and I did a lot of that on en: back in the day). That is another reason why I should be in control of this account here - that way there is no misattribution.

Thanks in advance. --Joy-temporary (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Other

Somethin' new

A heads up... someone please take a closer look at a recent vandal's attempted exploits

• http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=2420025

I don't know what that was going to be but it is full of URLs & IP addresses. —

Just squashed a second attempt - hid the revision text as a precaution. Seems to be looking for what ranges/IPs are currently blocked ? — George Orwell III (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=2420810
• http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=2418152

GO3, it is the vandal from daktel, now using an addresses from myvzw.com (their telephone), and they are showing us how successful a vandal they are and their cleverness. We just keep shutting them out and undo. We can softblock slabs, and 72.101.0.0/16 and 75.221.0.0/16 are clear if we need to, and we can simply look to expand if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Was that all? All I saw was some list or something being generated using toolserver.org and freaked out. When I looked at it even closer, it had more stuff that I didn't know what would happen if I left it around. Sorry for the over-reaction - I honestly figured better safe than sorry. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, wouldn't fuss it, like most graffiti best to just cover it up and send it away, rather than let their puerile brag stand. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Not sure what to make of this maneuver

• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ballsmahoney365

Looks like someone created an account to create a back-up user-name for when the account gets banned so he can usurp & back-date the 2nd account for the next ban? — George Orwell III (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a duplicate or copycat of that manoeuvre that would be good to be traced:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:!_ari-ari-ari_!&oldid=2784083

ResScholar (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an edit from somewhere in Peru, on an account that had edited jaWP at some point. Looks more clueless rather than sinister. Should be fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism spree

User:Sdaufoiagewqhseudh is spraying recent pages with spurious headers and has started to undo reverts. Can someone please block so that we can tidy up? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: edits to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template

I have made a series of edits to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template in the past couple of days.

1. Link to Help:Page Status
2. To add context specific link to tool http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/checker/?db=enwikisource_p

As background, this is the template that is the design point for the Index: namespace pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User: 208.93.181.72

Just a heads-up. The above user's only edits have all been to add spurious content to various Gilbert and Sullivan operas. All changes have been reverted or sdeleted (thanks Hesperian). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue Box

Here, on the right corner of the blue box, the text reads: "related portals: Bilateral documents.". I went to {{header}} and could not find how to change it so that a period does not follow does not automatically "insert" when this template is used. I do realize that I am an anon so I won't be able to change the template, so I am asking someone more knowledgeable (also) to change it, thanks in advance.205.206.8.197 01:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The terminating period is not part of the link. A work/page can belong to multiple portals which display separated by a comma, so they are terminated by a period. What is the issue? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice please: Wiping Outlines of European History

Following Tannertsf's request on Scriptorium that Index:Outlines of European History.djvu be wiped so his class can work on it, I asked the uploader and majority contributor, Blurpeace, who has agreed that it is OK. There are only a few pages, so it is not a practical problem to do so. However, I can't find any sort of precedent from which to work, so I'd like to know if it is all right to go ahead. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that there would be a precedent, nor if we did it that we would want it to be seen as a precedent. II don't like the idea of losing content for the purposes of an exercise, especially without knowing the benefit that there is to the community. That said, if we are only blanking the pages of a moribund work (not deleting), then there is no loss, as long as we are able to recover the work, and to know when we could do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done it now. I will check back in a few months and undelete the pages if nothing new has been done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted FORENSIC EVALUATION REPORT

I have deleted a document that would seem to have been a report to a court. It seemed a very personal document that I felt we would not want to host. I would appreciate if another admin would take a look at it review my decision. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection with the convicted terrorist sympathizer Abdullah al-Muhajir? :-þ

I wouldn't think you would, so what exactly is the problem here again? -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I find a veiled but centered accusation that anyone who has a problem with this is a terrorist sympathizer to be way over the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find the tongue-out absurdity of raising such a implausible point to begin with, then I don't know what more I can do to make that more clear for you.

The issue goes toward U.S. law and evidence submitted during court proceedings that ultimately played a role in securing a Federal conviction. I believe there is no jeopardy in hosting such a document and, so far, the only reason I can see for its deletion is based within matters of subjective taste. In the absence of a better explanation than just being a "very personal document", I thought contrasting it with a just-as-moot rationale would move things along a bit faster was all. Sorry if it came off as anything otherwise. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you just playing the troll here? :-þ

It is not Wikisource's place to hold private documents about random federal cases, particularly ones that are intrusive to the privacy of the person.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can point me to that policy or maybe previous instances where subjective determinations trumped existing guidelines and the like, it would be much appreciated. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any policy which prohibits such a document. Although personal, its subject is notable, could be considered historical, acts to accompany en.wp article as a source. I don't feel very strongly opposed, but rather dislike the idea of censorship. - Theornamentalist (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have recovered the document (added header and the provided links), though that recovery not about whether we should or should not host the work, it is more to allow this to follow our due process. It wasn't clearly evident that there was any convicted terrorist and , and I just saw a submitted report [added/edited] by the same name as the psychologist, I wrongly assumed that they had just created and added it. I will let someone work out the licence that is going to be applied to the document. The deletion was not anything about censorship and I reject that statement without any evidence that was my purpose. To the general commentary, that it is a document of the court by an expert witness and available to the public does not explain how it automatically is it into the public domain under one of our licences. It is not an edict of government, nor a work or a US public servant, so the best that we could say is that it is not a literary work or one of the creative mind, hence it is not subject to copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look to see if I can find anything for it. I apologize, I did not mean to accuse you of censorship, rather, its deletion in principle I felt could be construed as censorship, and the result of the (inevitable) subjectivity of WWI. It certainly is a fringe case, and I admit to not thinking much about the other points you've made regarding license and such, I just disagreed where you reasoned that it was personal and thus not within our scope. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

enWS being used to circumvent block

SchoolcraftT appears to be trying to use enWS to circumvent an indefinite block on Commons commons:User talk:SchoolcraftT as a way to get images uploaded to commons through the transwiki process. I'm not sure of the appropriate processes in this situation. Any ideas? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion separately from Bees' observations. I began a polite line of questioning on the User's talkpage in hopes of drawing out what exactly is going on with the images in question, if not the Commons ban itself. Not a very positive tone in his/her reply so far.

Other than that, I'm hoping a more expierenced admin can at least get us past the checkuser and/or verification stuff before doing anything specific or going any further in response to this matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar conversation in IRC where there was a request to move pages, yet when it is suggested that they uploaded them directly then there was utter silence. Our practice has been to migrate works to Commons where they fit within C's scope and are required as part of our works , or some of the images that ended up here and have some value to move to Commons. Nothing more. One that I deleted had had multiple different versions. I will not be moving them, and if they remain I will be deleting them as out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=SchoolcraftT — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just whacked 'em all. After reviewing the ongoing nonsense on WP and Commons again in closer detail, this User is just buying time by not being forthcoming, etc. He/she does this to poke and prod the various possible avenues for ultimately getting what he/she wants, policy, copyrights and etiquette be damned. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons admins notified via their noticeboard and we can let them manage it. I am not planning on wasting more effort on this, if pushed, I would just suggest a block, at this point identifying the act and managing seems sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Though previous behaviour indicates sockpuppeting may soon follow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though it will be at Commons, as that behaviour here would stand out like dog's balls (to euphemate). If Commons CU requests actions, we would likely oblige.— billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur, support block if same or simular images begin appearing here related to person, regardless of sock ID. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I applied an infinite block to the account SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs), and disabled email and talk access. I also a similar block to the ip User:184.19.64.215 for a single day. Change any of that if it helps. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Following a request in IRC, I have modified the block to allow talk page and email. Please see User talk:SchoolcraftT#Unblocked talk page, and opened mail per request. Note that user is on a dynamic IP address, though with a known range. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Special Delete

Please check my edits at 16:15 & 16:16 today, delete them and the IP edits completely. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done thanks JeepdaySock (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

spam urls

having a brain fart... can't recall where to add urls being spammed into articles. Need to add:

• http://doggroomingboutique.com

thanks -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done. To MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Works protected in 2006 like The Gates of Somnauth & bits

Back in 2006 there were quite a number of historically significant political speeches that were contributed, progressed to 75% textquality, then fully sysop locked and the template {{locked}} added to the works. While undertaking various cleanups over time to update the headers, they have not been bot'able due to the protection. In reflection, I am wondering why we have them protected compared to our contemporary protection approach. Initially, I think that we should have a general review of works that are marked locked to see whether the particular works should be so marked when they are not proofread twice, and now cannot be by anyone but an admin. Then it is time that we did a root and branch review of our protection approach and get that reflected in our Wikisource:Protection policy — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting autopatroller right

Hey, I used to be an admin, but Real Life reared it's ugly head and I dropped off the face of the earth, wiki-wise. I'm semi-back, not enough to warrant asking for my admin bit back, but enough that I'd like to go ahead and get the autopatroller flag so nobody has to go back and double-check my edits. I've got 1600+ edits, so I'd imagine I meet any requirements. :) EVula // talk // 00:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo. Done with pleasure. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. I'm hoping that life will allow me to actually come back here more regularly now. EVula // talk // 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Another request for autopatroller rights

Hi,

Echoing EVula's request, I also used to be an admin about 5 years back before RL intervened. I'm back, but want to reacquaint myself with things before asking to be admin again. However, I plan on picking up some of the tasks I used to work on, like monitoring the orphaned pages, so will be making lots of edits (as can be seen by my activities today). If I can get the autopattoller flag, it should save other people a lot of work. :) Thanks. Illy (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done by Theornamentalist 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)