Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2007

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2007, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Unwatched pages[edit]

There are a large number of unwatched pages (see Special:Unwatchedpages). Although most users seem to use the recent changes list, I recommend that others edit their preferences to automatically watchlist edited pages. Wikisource's RC list won't always be this slow. :) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I, as an admin at 7 Wiki sites, sometimes use the feature. Special:Contributions/newbies may be used to check new users' edits, but I am unsure if there is a similar feature to check anonymous users' edits.--Jusjih 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
To check anonymous users' edits, go to the RC page and click "Hide logged-in users." Here it is.--Politicaljunkie 15:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. This way I can patrol anonymous users' edits much more easily. English Wikipedia now suffers frequent anonymous vandalism.--Jusjih 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Protecting pages[edit]

Admins, please remember when you protect a page to ensure that the textquality templates (either at 75% or 100%) are on the page and that {{locked}} is also on the page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin help request[edit]

Could an admin please add Category:Belgium to Belgium and payments to Russia? Thank you. --Stevenfruitsmaak 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley instant message chats with Congressional page[edit]

I proctected this page and it's talk page with {{deletedpage}}. Some people apparently feel Wikisource really needs to host this transcript, so keep an eye out for this popping up again somewhwere.--BirgitteSB 02:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortly afterward I unprotected the talk page. Eventually the issue died down. Do you all think we just delete these pages now?--BirgitteSB 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If somebody came in the future to re-add it, unlike I Have a Dream, it's unlikely they'd choose that exact title to paste it at, so having the template seems pointless...on the other hand, is there any argument against it? *shrugs* Sherurcij (talk) (λεμα σαβαχθανει) 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It was recreated after deletion, and it seemed obvious the users involved would do so again. Since those users are gone and interest has died down, I've deleted the page and watchlisted it for recreation. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It might have help people who believe that the work is public domain. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Speedy deletion requests[edit]

This is getting a bit backed up. Also I think some categories are listed but not orphaned. I started on but I am not going to be online for the rest of the weekend.--BirgitteSB 16:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The only things left in there are User:Sanbeg/Test and User:Sanbeg/Text. They use a lot of templates and I gave up trying to figure out why they are in that category. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to know how those two pages are being categorized...I can't find ANY information about categories anywhere on those pages.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere {{Speedy}} is being called. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

VandalPatrol on Speed[edit]

There is a tool on the toolserver provided by User:Henna. It will let you pull up unpatrolled edits for any date range which is useful when we get behind on patrolling edits. --BirgitteSB 01:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Flexo[edit]

I indefinitely blocked Flexo (talkcontribs) in accordance with the Blocking policy for disruption. This user's sole contribution was to create a user ($hit (talkcontribs)) who I also indefinitely blocked for having an inappropriate username. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This was undone by the blocking adminsitrator after discussion on IRC.--BirgitteSB 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism[edit]

Please permanently block Benjamin's_Peenie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL). His only contributions consist of uploading of a pornographic image and placing it on various pages, moving user and other pages to nonsense titles, and other acts of vandalism. I have undone all his edits and marked resulting redirects for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Already blocked by Shanel. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


Because this, do you agree with this and this? Lugusto 16:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you please explain what exactly the problem is? English Wikisource does not host Portuguese articles.--Jusjih 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the message at Pt is a good idea, perhaps you should reapeat it in portugese as well. Is there anyway to fix the bug permenantly?--BirgitteSB 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
In short, no! See w:Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English/Templates for user talk pages! I have added an approximate Portuguese translation to the template (my Portuguese is pretty limited). Physchim62 13:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done the same to Es now... 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Could a disinterested admin review this edit and take whatever action he or she feels justified. Thanks! Physchim62 13:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: ask Psychim why he's such a [insert any of a number of words beginning with "D"]. Seriously, you called for an admin to "take action against me" because I asked for a review? You make it sound like I invaded Indochina. Signed, a mildly amused Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Soft redirect maintenance[edit]

I plan to delete the June 2006 soft redirects on 30 December 2006 with TalBot (see bot requests page). Generally, pages linking to soft redirects will receive automatic link correction. It turns out that there are very few such pages for this particular month. I've decided to exclude pages whose titles begin with User: or contain the string /Archive for politeness and preservations reasons. If you are not happy with any of this, please leave a note on the bot requests page. Thank you. If all works well, I will delete the soft redirects for the subsequent months every few days until the backlog is cleared.--GrafZahl 16:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Zillymann vandalism[edit]

Zillymann was moving things around. I think I took care of it all, but you might want to check. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 12:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having checked this vandal's edits, none is useful, so "life imprisonment without parole" is necessary.--Jusjih 14:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You were supposed to check my edits to make sure I did not make a mistake (multiple page moves! template substations! its almost more than a newmanbe can handle!) --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I see no errors in your edits. Should moving vandalism occur, your action is fine.--Jusjih 16:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I protected this page with {{deletedpage}} without going through the full procedure. I imagine it will be an uncontriversial decision, but if anyone objects feel free to reverse it.--BirgitteSB 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does that page concern?--Jusjih 09:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
You say it's a spambot target, but the page is currently unprotected. Protect, it is never going to be needed for a legitimate text! Physchim62 13:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I apprently have trouble working the protection interface. It is now protected. THe page concerns nothing except spambot keep recreating it.--BirgitteSB 01:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Confirm it is now protected, as it should be IMHO :) Physchim62 17:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL) Numerous, blatant vandalism edits all over WS on March 21, 2007. — MrDolomite | Talk 11:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, along with (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL).--GrafZahl (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Done.--GrafZahl (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy usernames[edit]

I suggest indef blocking two recently created users: User:I wanna write some pornographies here!!!! and User:Write some fuck novels here!! Neither of them have any contributions, but I don't see why we should wait around for them to start contributing. ;-) Hesperian 13:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't care if User:Write some fuck novels here!! was going to start contributing or not, but Wikisource:Erotica sure would've appreciated User:I wanna write some pornographies here!!!!'s contributions! *kidding* Sherurcij COTW:Lady Gregory 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yann has blocked both names.--BirgitteSB 21:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Discussion at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Court_cases

User:Smee is adding stubs such as this: Divine_Light_Mission_v._Katz_,_Katz_,_Katz_,_Buck_691_F.2d_512, and this Divine_Light_Mission_v._Katz_688_F.2d_851 IMO, useless information. Other court cases about private persons are also dubious in value and appropriateness for inclusion, such as this one: U.S._v._Donner_528_F.2d_276 Tagged as speedy. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • User:Jossi has inappropriately been tagging these for "speedy deletion", when these are all clearly not speedy delete candidate. They are public domain court documents that establish legal precedent and caselaw. "Notability" is not the issue to discuss here. As for the "stub" pages, these are not simply in existence alone, but part of a larger appeals process in the life of the case, Divine Light Mission v. Katz, and when the lower court decisions are added, they will exist as part of that case history. Smee 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
    • Also, as for U.S. v. Donner, I hardly think this is a privacy issue, at all. This is not even the lower court decision, but a official opinion of the United States Court of Appeals, on previously established convictions for "conspiracy, depredations against property of United States and mutilation of government documents, specifically, selective service files, moved for correction or reduction of sentences." Privacy is not an issue when this is clearly a public domain document, produced by the United States Federal Government, and an opinion written by the United States Court of Appeals. Smee 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
You are confusing issues. I am not arguing for "privacy", I am arguing for notability. A court decision on a private person that is not notable does not warrant its inclusion in Wikisource, as this project is not a dumpground for any material just because it is in the public domain. Also, two of these stubs such as [[Divine_Light_Mission_v._Katz_688_F.2d_851 contain no useful of notable information and thus are suitable candidates for CSD. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is, in affect, an attempt at CENSORSHIP by Jossi. Check out the other material on WikiSource relating to Prem Rawat, which is favorable to the individual. When public domain documents appear online, through publicly available court filings, that shed more light on his organization, the Divine Light Mission, and are not personal speeches from Prem Rawat, but rather descriptive public domain court documents, Jossi is attempting to get these deleted. And not just that, but speedily deleted. And, I might add, this Noticeboard is a most inappropriate venue to bring this up. Smee 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
    • "Notability" is not the issue at hand here. But if it were, how would Maharaji at Thamamssat University be any more or less "notable" then public domain, publicly available court filings relating to the Divine Light Mission? You must ask yourselves whether Jossi's points above are applicable to WikiSource as related to "notability" or an attempt at Censorship. Thank you for your time. Smee 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
What happened to w:WP:AGF? Or is it that your only way to address editors' concerns is to poison the well? I find your approach here and en:wiki to be most unbecoming. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 02:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that way, but these speedy deletes on all of these public domain documents just smacks of an attempt at censorship, as opposed to furthering positive contributions to this project. Smee 06:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
My personal opinion, having just asked about "privacy" and "public domain court documents" on Wikisource a few weeks ago - is that while while lawsuits targetting a corporation, church or other organisation are fair game, ones targetting an individual are likely to broach privacy concerns unless the specific individual is considered notable (could use WP guidelines, if they have an accepted wiki article, for instance). That said, stubs are useless and will be deleted in a while anyways unless they're completed. Also, nix the "See also" text please. Sherurcij COTW:Lady Gregory 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 03:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That seems to make sense, however in this case the United States Government successfully convicted multiple individuals. The Federal Case was not against one single person, but a group of people, and the case is a matter of Public Domain record, as a case in the United States District Court, which was then heard before the United States Court of Appeals. Question: -- If a case is heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, but it is not regarding a "notable" individual, does that case also not belong on WikiSource, in your opinion, or does "notability" only apply on WikiSource to cases for the United States Court of Appeals and below??? Smee 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
You may be mistaking the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine with the w:Supreme Court of the United States. Big difference... ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a great deal of "discretion" at play, however my opinion would be that a case going to the Supreme Court makes it notable, since it has become a legal benchmark - which a simple case before a state, federal, tax or appeals court is merely a precedent - something somewhat different. Again, I suppose it falls to whether the person would be likely to be considered an "acceptable" wikipedia article or not. It's something of the "Google pheneomena", where just because something *is* publically available to interested parties, does that mean we should be broaching privacy concerns? I mean, I don't know about you - but I personally have a criminal record, and wouldn't see any reason for another Wiki user to put the case details on Wikimedia unless I was a notable criminal myself, or the legal case was notable in setting a new legal benchmark. Sherurcij COTW:Lady Gregory 06:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
All good points. However, I would argue that a great majority of the opinions written by the United States Court of Appeals actually do set legal precedent and cited caselaw, and are notable to be included on the project. Smee 06:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
You are not listening. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 14:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Legal precedents such as employment benefits disputes, could be filed under that category. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 15:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That you for removing the speedy delete requests for the longer court opinion documents. If I understand the above reasoning correctly, as "Divine Light Mission", does have a Wikipedia article, and is thus "notable", if the full court opinions in those related cases, or lower court cases were to be inputted, it would be a public domain court document on a "notable" organization, and thus includable on the project, and the relevant later appeals decisions would be notable as well. Smee 16:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
No, you are mistaken. The Divine Light Mission is neither plaintiff nor defendant in the court documents that you added. These two documents are about private, non notable persons. You are most welcome to add any court documents that name any organization or church as defendants or plaintiffs. But documents related to private persons, should not be included, for reasons stated above. In any case, as it is obvious that you will not accept these explanations from me, I have requested the OTRS to look into this issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 22:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
OTRS? That is highly unusual and unecessary, especially for PUBLIC DOMAIN, publicly accessible court documents. And yes, the Divine Light Mission is the plaintiff in two of the public domain documents added. However, if other users weigh in on this, and think it is okay to remove these documents, I will not push this further on the project. Smee 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC).
As I said, any court cases in which a notable organization is named as plaintiff or defendant, can be included. The problem is that these two cases that you added, contain not text and as such can be deleted, unless of course, you can find the text of these court cases, at which point will remain unchallenged. As for OTRS, the reason I contacted them is the fact that there is no BLP policy in Wikisource, and we lack here the protection extended in Wikipedia to non-notable individuals. That is what OTRS is there for, to address issues such as these. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 01:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is that not what this noticeboard is for? You have preemptively jumped past the deletion process on this project, and we have only heard from one other party so far. As I have previously stated already, if others weigh in that these documents should be removed, I will raise no further objections. But your actions are inappropriate at this time. Smee 08:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
You are not to be the judge on my actions, Smee. Sorry, but I have not granted you that discretion. I have stated my reasons above: Wikisource does not has (as yet) a policy related to BLPs, and I will do my best to ensure that a vigorous debate is started in this regard as stop-gap measure, I have contacted the OTRS and if the OTRS believe that they should not intervene, they will tell me so. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, so you have decided to jump the gun on process, not wait to hear from more individuals either here on this noticeboard, and not wait for the deletion process to play out. Just so OTRS knows the full story that you have not waited to give the process a chance here on the project. Smee 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
The process is ongoing and there is a vigorous debate at the proposed deletions page. As I said, if there is no merit in my inquiry to OTRS, folks there will let me know. I have pointed them to this discussion, so they will be able to assess the situation and offer advice, if they see it fit. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hopefully the OTRS folks will take notice that you have contacted OTRS BEFORE letting the situation play out either here on this noticeboard or on the deletion process. Smee 16:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
Surely the OTRS people are experienced enough to look into all aspects of this dispute. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 16:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Good. So surely they will recognize the fact that you contacted them before either discussion was finalized either at this noticeboard or in the deletion process itself. Smee 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
You already said that three times. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 18:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, just wanted to make sure OTRS was aware that the processes, both here and at Proposed Deletions, is still ongoing. Smee 20:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

Obvious vandalism[edit]

  • By Kazoo the Magnificent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL). And can someone please move my talk page and User page back to normal? Thank you for your time. Smee 08:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
    • See also Logs, for the various page moves that will need to be corrected. Smee 09:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
      • Seems to be willy on wheels. Block him. Lupo 09:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I have no prior experience with "willy on wheels", but it is quite disturbing how much faster one vandal can disrupt an entire project here on Wikisource, as opposed to Wikipedia... Smee 09:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
          • Smaller project, less participants → less admins → more times when no admin is active at all (like this morning). Small projects make easy targets for vandals. Lupo 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Been dealt with, thanks to User:MaxSem, a steward. Lupo 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Thank you to MaxSem !!! Smee 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC).


I've successfully vandalized {{vandal}} so you no longer need to replace spaces with underscores. This has been the case on eN WikipediA for some time, and I just imported the new code. I didn't bother with the "IPinfo" link as noone will click that for a username as they can't be WHOIS'd and likewise, IPs don't have spaces. 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Volapuke (talkcontribs) has gone on a rampage; could someone please block the user. I have fixed most of the problems, sdeleted some, but left the moves to be corrected by an admin. John Vandenberg 05:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. this guy is making a comeback. ThomasV 05:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting and blocking. I've move-protected some of the policy/process pages which were moved by the vandal. Luckily, most pages targeted had already been protected by Pathoschild.--GrafZahl (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Whistling Whizzer (talkcontribs) needs to be blocked; I've reverted the simple cases, but a few pieces of vandalism remain as they require admin intervention. John Vandenberg 07:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. Thanks for reverting. I believe I reverted/deleted all the rest. Would have been a lot easier if the "rollback" button would revert page moves. It even says "action complete" without doing anything.--GrafZahl (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, according to bugzilla:6984, the move rollback buttons are in the move log, not on the user contributions page. That should make it easier next time.--GrafZahl (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the rest. This account was created on 06:52, 30 August 2007. In order to minimize this happening, my understanding is that we can restrict upload, Help: and page-moves to autoconfirmed users. Is this a reasonable limitation that could be proposed on Scriptorium? John Vandenberg 09:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any possibility to restrict uploads. Moving certain central pages (typically in the Wikisource: namespace) is already restricted to sysops. A general edit restriction for a large class of pages feels contrary to the wiki principle to me (what if an IP user just wants to fix a typo on a help page?). Temporary protection in specific cases is already regulated in the protection policy. Our greatest weakness right now is that the time it takes until an admin notices that something's up may be relatively long compared to Wikipedia. However, as long as such vandalism can be undone relatively easily, I don't see a reason to change our protection policy.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


I would like to direct some more attention over there. I believe Sherurcij deserves everyone's consideration. If anyone is worried about telling him something unpleasant, I would say he very well knew what to expect in making the nomination and has likely prepared himself for that. If people feel they must abstain, I would encourage them to do so publicly. I think Sherurcij's contributions demand that everyone who is committed here at least share their thoughts on the issue, even if their thoughts do not lead them to decision. Two opinions in six days is no credit to anyone. Sherurcij's long commitment here may or may not be enough to warrant adminship, but it is certainly enough to warrant full consideration for his request.--BirgitteSB 20:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, should you also take this to Scriptorium? - Epousesquecido 21:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't normally announce these sort of things. Most everyone watches Special:Recentchanges and is aware of any local activity. We mainly announce non-local stuff.--BirgitteSB 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The request is announced in the September 2007 edition of Wikisource News (this is normal, not a result of the above comments). —{admin} Pathoschild 15:43:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

please block this vandal[edit]

Hello, please block the vandal redacted by blocking admin. Besides the inflammatory nature of the name itself, the user's only edits have been personal attacks. Thank you. --Kyoko 15:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Done [1]. I didn't want to create that talk page so I didn't leave a message. Anyways the editor can hardly be surprised to find themselves blocked.--BirgitteSB 17:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Rename request (unsurp)[edit]

Hi guys. I am renaming myself across Wikimedia, from Brian New Zealand (talkcontribs) to Brian (talkcontribs). I could not find the correct page here, so I apologise if I am posting incorrectly on this page. Could a bcrat please consider renaming me here as well? Thanks in advance Brian New Zealand 23:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved your comment to Zhaladshar's talk page; he's the local bureaucrat. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:33:43, 09 September 2007 (UTC)


This has been tagged for transwiki to wikisource. Do you want it? If so, would some admin here please do that and let me know when it's done? Thanks! Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the "nationalisation" (see copyright notice and [2]) imply that this work is in the public domain or otherwise free?--GrafZahl (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is PD. Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting move over redirect[edit]

I looked for a template to request this but couldn't find one (apologies if there is), so will request here: can someone please move Author:Algernon Swinburne to Author:Algernon Charles Swinburne over the redirect? All works by him are published under his full name... his wikipedia article is at Algernon Charles Swinburne, and a search for "Algernon Swinburne" turns up pages where he is always referred to with the addition of "Charles". Thanks in advance :) -- Editor at Largetalk 14:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please update the author template and fix the incoming double-redirect. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 16:50:35, 02 October 2007 (UTC)
All done, thank you Pathoschild :D -- Editor at Largetalk 17:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

I would really appreciate if all the administrators (because I expect more of us) took part in my straw poll. Thanks--BirgitteSB 18:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I went and looked at that discussion and I'm not clear exactly where to say anything at this point. It's a deep and complex subject, and a drive by comment that didn't have a lot of thought behind it might do more harm than good, so rather than make some off the cuff remark, I'd rather defer to others, at least for now... ++Lar: t/c 15:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

random gibberish from many IPs[edit]

We have a bunch of texts being vandalised by more than one IP all in quick succession. Someone please block them. John Vandenberg 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are adding single "words" (a string of just letters, with no space or other characters) this sems to be currently an endemic problem at a number of small wikis I am involved in. I started just putting down range blocks because as soon as I blocked one IP, the same article got vandalised by another IP. That's not really as good an idea here I guess... Do you have some example articles? ++Lar: t/c 14:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed a few of them last night. See, e.g., Doe v. MySpace, Inc. (this edit); Ode to the West Wind (this one); Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Chapter 5 (this one); and Category talk:Ghana. Tarmstro99 17:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tarmstro99. Those IPs are (x2) (x3) and John Vandenberg 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Just looking through my undo's: (x4), (x2) (x2) (x2),, and John Vandenberg 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Tarmstro99: Similar but not quite the same... GLW's IP vandalbots WERE doing that but they've moved on to just inserting the chars at the top. I expect we can expect that here too. I nosed around for a bot that might help at GLW but didn't find anything and ended up writing some perl that makes it easier to clean up and block but it's pretty crude. Eagle101 gets most of the credit, he helped me. Thanks for the pointers to the diffs. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ has hit again. Can an admin please block all of these IPs? Is there is good reason not to? John Vandenberg 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

blocked the most recent one, since that address has been used on two separate occasions to vandalise. Will add a warning ot the other talkpages. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 23:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

talk page to be merged[edit]

I think Talk:Bible, Free needs to be merged with Talk:Bible (Free). Also, I think that the bot that processes {{dated soft redirect}} should pass over any pages that have a talk page so that an admin can work out whether the talk page is useful and needs to be moved somewhere. John Vandenberg 07:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


...has been imported to English Wikibooks. I imagine you'll want to delete the page since it's not within project scope here. Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Protecting Pygmalion and Galatea[edit]

Just FYI, I protected this page against editing by anonymous users for 30 days following over a dozen instances of vandalism from multiple IPs over the past two weeks. Tarmstro99 01:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving WS:S[edit]

It seems to have been a long time since the Scriptorium was archived, and the page was getting rather long, so I have begun archiving some of the older discussions over the last few days. I’m the newbie admin here and am not interested in stepping on anybody’s toes, so please feel free to tell me to knock it off. I’ve tried to focus on discussions that seem to have run their course and haven’t been added to in a long time, even if nobody posted a “so, in conclusion, let’s do X” kind of comment. That still leaves me with a number of discussions that I’m uncertain how to handle, such as all the Mandelstam stuff, but I figured that it was still a good idea to at least begin removing some of the clutter. Tarmstro99 13:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Better to err on the side of caution, with discussions that don't seem to be resolved yet. But thanks for cleaning up the resolved clutter! :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Winston Churchill 14:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)