Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2017

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 on 01 January 2017, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Checkuser requests[edit]

Angolan uploader of .webm[edit]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 0:00, 15 January 2017

Checking with the community on the consensus to have a checkuser undertaken for the current uploader of out of scope and copyright violation .webm files, and to get a range block, or two, for a month or so to stop this behaviour. User accounts at this stage are

billinghurst sDrewth 22:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Hesperian 00:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. BethNaught (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed — Ineuw talk 13:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment request made m:special:diff/16164792/prevbillinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

noting that four more accounts have appeared. Managed and added to CU request. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed. I've already blocked the IP range with an expiry time of three months as there is a huge amount of sockpuppets on it, though there may be a small collateral damage. Please pay attention on this. Regards, RadiX 13:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

According to your local checkuser policy, I'm informing that I've also checked another spam-only account (spambot) - Jpairconditioning (per request at SRG) and I've also globally blocked the abused IP range. RadiX 14:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Bot Request[edit]

Hello bureaucrats, would someone please review Wikisource:Scriptorium#Fluxbot and close as approved or not approved? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 01:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove rights AuCoBot[edit]

Could the rights please be removed from AuCoBot. It is not longer required as a task, and the bot is inactive. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. I wonder why it had been assigned the flood (i.e. "bot user") flag rather than the bot flag.... Hesperian 03:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Mein Kampf[edit]

Please unprotect Mein Kampf. There is a public domain English translation of Author:James Vincent Murphy. See this. United Kingdom is now in 2017. [1] --Abelium (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Wikilivres might be willing to host, but we can't because US Copyright law must be met as well as that of the originating country. See WS:Copyright policy. It is the same (Murphy) translation that was removed and protected back while. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, United States are now in 2016. Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation) will be Public domain in United States after few hours . Wikisource should unprotect Mein Kampf. --Abelium (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
US copyright law is hairy; for many purposes, including for this work, it's publication+95 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to do here until the issue of copyright is resolved, and that conversation is probably best at WS:CV or WS:PD, though I favour the former. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


Mein Kampf[edit]

Adolf Hitler ‎died in 1945. James Vincent Murphy ‎died in 1946. United Kingdom is now in 2017. Translation of Mein Kampf by James Vincent Murphy is now Public domain. But User:Beeswaxcandle deleted Mein Kampf (James Vincent Murphy translation).--Abelium (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a long discussed case that's clearly not public domain in the US. No abuse at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
To note that it has been previously loaded at "My Struggle" and deleted from there. logbillinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For reasons of laziness and convenience ...[edit]

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

... I have put "indefinite" as the top block time option. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding possible use of wikisource for nonproductive purposes[edit]

I don't know exactly what policies or guidelines here, if any, relate to this matter. So, maybe, there may not be anything here to address. I dunno, but I believe that as per the history of this user User:Ret.Prof here of over 3500 edits, I don't know that I see a single edit outside of user space. On that basis, I think that, maybe, similar to the concerns I have now raised at wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ret.Prof and WP:NOTBLOG, maybe there might be grounds for questioning this editor's presence here as well. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that our policies in this situation are a bit vague. To provide additional context, all of this user's edits have been made towards "reconstructing" a hypothetical palimpsest of the New Testament gospel message. This is predicated on the assumption that at least three of the gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all derive from a common original text. However, there are no copies nor mention of such a text in any early records. Further, the "reconstruction" being made in his user space is an English version, so it is based entirely on English translations, and cannot reconstruct any hypothetical early document, which necessarily would have been written in Koine Greek. So, the edits being made are towards an original work that could never be hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
They also seem to be, more or less, in line with a lot of his earlier edits over at wikipedia along the same lines. Some of those edits involved fraudulent misrepresentation of sourcing to support the same contention there. He has stated more or less from the beginning that he as an individual has a personal belief in the matter of w:Papias supporting some more Jewish version of Christianity, and that version being more or less the "true" one. Also, the fact that his sanction there, at least in part because of the fraudulent misrepresentation of sourcing, can I think raise serious questions regarding whether any transcription he might do here would necessarily be trustworthy. John Carter (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Original contributions has allowed flexibility in the user namespace for personal writing. It is not disruptive. and I have let it be in that space, be it fact, fiction or opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Still as a sign of good faith I will try to address the concerns that John raised. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Foreign language words turning up in odd places[edit]

I'm not sure if it's just me, or if it's happening to others, but I'm getting foreign words turning up in various places in the UI. e.g. The "Unprotect" tab on WS:PotM is in Persian characters; and the heading for the language list on RC is in Finnish. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything. What is listed in is what you should see on the labels. If you need to see a message name ... ?uselang=qqx at the end of a standard url. 11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete backlog[edit]

This morning (my time), I find that Category:Speedy deletion requests has 86 entries. It is rare for it to have more than one or two. In all of the cases I checked, ShakespeareFan00 is both the nominator and the original creator, so it seems they could all be legitimately speedied as "G7 — Author's Request". However when this many similar requests all appear at once, and all related, it does make me wonder if there is something going on — some discussion somewhere — that an admin ought to be aware of before actioning this... or is it just a commendable burst of activity? Hesperian 01:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

All the Speedy Deletions are Templates. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I deleted a few, but not all. Most are no longer being used: they were created to assist with formatting a particular work (or works) and have now been subst'ed, as the work is complete / the templates are not needed. However, I noticed a few templates are still in use, and so the page using them appears as a speedy deletion as well. Those will need to be taken care of before clearing the speedies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hesperian: you may wish to reference the discussion at the base of my user talk page for some of the background as was made aware to me, and the links. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The above templates have been deleted. A what Links Here was done for every page and none linked to Mainspace pages --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, but a couple of them linked to the Page namespace, and the Pages had not been transcluded. Was this checked? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I've now rechecked the above templates with all namespaces. There's just one with other links Template:Td -- This links to namespaces that can't be seen by the general public. These are: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2014 and User talk:Beeswaxcandle/Archive4 --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Block review requested[edit]

User talk:Lx 121billinghurst sDrewth 08:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Being that the block has already ended, perhaps what is being requested is a review of the block itself?—or a review of the actions that led up to the block? It appears that the User was blocked by Beeswaxcandle for "disruptive editing" (may I assume under the condition of "harrassment"?)—the 2-hr block occurring after (if I interpreted/converted the time stamps correctly) a couple sets of edit revisions between Lx 121 and Billinghurst took place, and after Lx 121 made what could be interpreted as an insulting remark in a comment as a result of the edits. Perhaps a warning would have been appropriate in this case, accompanied by an explanatory comment. Then, if the User continued to be "disruptive", a block could be applied. It is my opinion that Billinghurst's edits were "teaching" edits—that is how I would have taken them. But it is Lx 121's stated intention (on their User page) to merely find content to paste and leave the processing to others. That is less than helpful, in my opinion. Seeking licensed/sourced quality work is desired here. If the user feels the project itself to be "moribund" (re: User talk page), then why feel the need to contribute here at all? WS Users should, in my opinion, take on the project with the mindset of a monastic scribe. That sort of attention to detail is what keeps this sister relevant and aligned with its purpose. If WS be "moribund", better to die nobly than ignobly. Numbers of editors and works are second to a quality product. But I am getting off-topic. It is my opinion that a warning may have been appropriate. Then, if "insulting" comments &c. continued, further action could be taken. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looking through the user's history, it is good to see that they want to contribute, but if they refuse to follow site policies and standards they really are just making more work for the rest of us, and if they are edit warring with users who are fixing the problems with their uploads then I think a block for disruptive editing is justified. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- the mission of ws is to provide useful content to END-USERS.

& after ~14 years of operation, there are maybe 100 regularly-contributing editors here, if that. there are maybe 100 non-trivial edits per day (averaged, & counting sequential copywork as single edits). working from the raw page-count/pages per item, you have got well under 100,000 "completed works"; i'm not sure if there are even 25,000. & looking through the author-pages, ws does not even have BASIC COVERAGE of major english/anglophone authors.

& almost all of the outside traffic & links are from wp/en articles; nobody outside of wm is linking to here.

the tl;dr of all of this is that the project is "not doing well"

ws/en is a tiny operation, it is stagnant in terms of both community & work, & if things don't improve, it is going to go away; i'm sorry if you guys haven't realised that yet, but if you don't "get" the importance of actually getting content online for users, then you have already lost...

& the fact that one of the admins here is busily deleting page-useage data from discussion pages, speaks VOLUMES.

The wmf is not going to keep funding this place indefinitely to accomplish so little; we might as well just cross-link to the real gutenberg & save the money.

the way things stand right now, when the wmf eventually needs to make serious budget-cuts to balance their finances, ws/en is going to be on the shortlist to chop & merge.

in this case, "dying a noble death" is a fancy way of saying "it failed, & the whole project was a waste of time & money".

& i'm sorry if i seem impatient, but i don't care about the personalities & politics; i'm here for the work.

& yeah, if none of that penetrates, i can go elsewhere with all this useful content, from major authors, which hasn't made it on to the wiki in the last 14 years; & when the wmf does their next review, i'll post an honest critique of everything that has gone wrong with ws/en, with appropriate cites, & i'll vote for appropriate actions then & there.

i came here to chew gum & upload text, & i don't have any gum...

with all due respect,

Lx 121 (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: As you say, Wikisource is a small project. Because we are a small project, we have a large backlog of maintenance to work through. When you add works without basic header information, source, or license, you add a whole pile of work to our backlog. The fact that you are willing to add page-usage data but not basic licensing and attribution also speaks volumes. Edit-warring with the very people who are cleaning up the backlog that you created will result in you being blocked again. If you follow our policies there will be no such problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
1. the material i've added is all pd pre-1923, usa.
it is LINKED to the author's bibliography page
since your initial compliant, i have been careful to include a link to the source for each item.
1.b) technically & legally speaking, there is no "license" for public domain materials; what you mean is "tagging" the content with copyright info. & if there is an easy-to-use, handy-dandy shortcut to add the appropriate tag for that, when creating a new page, then i haven't found it yet.
either way, it shouldn't be hard for an "experienced editor" to figure out what to do, if a tag needs fixing.
2. this is a "tiny" project, that is going nowhere.
most of the "backlog" you mention is busy-work & bureaucracy.
it is not "hard" to post a page of clean-copy text, add cats for author, date, subject, & link it to the author's bibliography-page, & DONE.
even all your nifty templates (& mediawiki's lousy formatting) don't make it that much harder to do this.
3. i am not "edit warring" with anybody; NOR was i blocked for that reason. if you really want to get into the merits of the case, we can do so, but it is tangential to the main issues here.
4. i don't work here anymore; i am done.
all i wanted to do, was to create a decent collection of h.l. mencken works, so wikipedia users can actually find something useful when they click the link to get "here".
after 14 years of operation, you guys had one item by mencken, 1 link to an item @ another site, & a rudimentary list of about a dozen of the author's works.
now, we have a bibliography for this person that is at least semi-decent;
& we have (or HAD) six times as much content for mencken, as you had a couple of weeks ago.
until a particular user started deleting it...
until or unless this community figures out what it is doing here; how to accomplish the "mission" of the project, & whether the are actual community rules & procedures for deletion, etc.
instead of "free reign" for admins to vent/inflict their personal opinions; without sanction or reversal.
then i have no reason to work here; & doing so is a complete waste of my time.
i am not going to invest the time, effort, commitment; or as the buddhists say i shall avoid "attachment" to this wiki.
let me know how things turn out with that? Lx 121 (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
That I personally do not care if you are not going to stay. Several people people tried to explain what's wrong with your contributions but you are still missing the point. Bad quality content (and you have clearly stated that you are not going to improve it) is the same as no content. Just make up your mind, you are becoming repetitive.— Mpaa (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Adding raw text to Wikisource doesn't help anything. Pasting unedited OCR text is not meaningfully adding content, and can drive users away by offering content that turns out to be useless.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

comment --

1. the items deleted were NOT "raw text", nor were they "ocr", they were CLEAN COPY (which means it was proofed & corrected) that only needed some formatting fixes, because mediawiki formatting is such crap.

2. the content was not "bad quality", nor did i state "i would not fix it" (& btw, i would like to point out that the whole point of having a wiki is to do collabourative work), & your statement "Bad quality content ... is the same as no content" is demonstrably false, is an attempt @ "false equivalency", is untrue in that having NO content is certainly worse as regards the actual purpose of wikisource, & as said abocve, at least twice by now, it was not "bad content".

3. doesn't matter, don't care, i am already GONE.

it is abundantly clear that no one is going to do anything to restore the deleted content, or address any of my complaints, or even give then due consideration, or fix anything. much less sanction the admin who has massively overstepped their bounds with these actions.

no one has even bothered to fix the blatant error that the deleting admin created in the mencken bibliography.

i am not saying that i will never set foot in your little "private domain" again. when i have something to do here that relates to wikipedia or whatever, i will come here, i will do it, & then i will leave.

but i am not spending any effort working on stuff here. it is not worth my time, & doing so would be a wasted effort; it has already been a deeply unpleasant & frustrating one.

tl,dr; i am done trying. i have better things to do with my time. i do not want to play in your private sandox that badly.

you guys are stuck in a rut so deep you can't even see it; membership/participation numbers are both tiny & stagnant, the amount of useful works produced over the last 14 years of operation is pitiful. you are failing the basic "mission" for which this project was created, you are not going to change until change is forced on you; & i honestly can't be bothered to fight those battles.

the wmf can fix this project whenever they get around to it; chop, merge, or a "hard reboot". whatever.

til then, you guys can just "sail on". without me.

if or when financial reality hits the wmf in the face, you should all be really worried.

let me know if any of you ever get your act together & fix the problems with this project? or fix some of then? or at least wake up & realise you've got some serious problems with how you are running this place, & at least want to try & fix them?

til then, goodbye.

Lx 121 (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph of A Short View of Gamalielese was:

IN the first sentence of th

e historic address from the east front of the Capitol, glowing there like a gem, was that piquant miscegenation of pronouns the one -he combination, for years a favorite of bad newspaper reporters and the inferior clergy. In the fourth sentence of the first message to Congress is illy , the passion of rural grammar teachers and professors of rhetoric in one

-building universities. We are, as they say, getting warm. The next great state paper

I can see where all (most?) of the errors could come from a cut and paste from a checked site, but that doesn't make it good quality, or Wikimedia's fault. It would be a good source to work from for his works, but rapidly pasting many works from the site without fixing them was problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Works about Mencken[edit]


+ * "The American Language", in The Bookman (9 June, 1921), book review by Gilbert M. Tucker (external scan)

iv. user inappropriately deleted the author's discussion page ; without discussion of this action, or etc.; mis-use of csd
@ wp/en these actions would fall somewhere in a venn diagram between "ownership", vandalism, & incompetence; & would invite discussion of at least a topic ban, if repeated.
Lx 121 (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
If you had communicated more clearly in the first place and linked to the deletion logs I might have understood you. In other news, I am experiencing déjà vu. BethNaught (talk) 11:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
i have just noticed that your link is inter-wiki; do you feel that this cited item somehow invalidates my complaint in this case, here? if so, please explain how? btw; i no longer choose to spend much of my time editing there anymore, either. but when i do, i like to do something useful Lx 121 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
also as re: "in other news", i do not see your usename anywhere in the cited discussion @ wp/en, so i do not see how your use of "deja vu" applies? unless you meant that you were experiencing a delusion of deja vu? Lx 121 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
i'm sorry, but please understand that i am more than slightly annoyed, & upset, to return here, after <24 hours, to find some user has gone on a "rampage" of unilateral deletions of my work; in what i think could fairly be called a series of "pointy" edits. Lx 121 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

additional -- user inappropriately deleted a .djvu scan that was in-use to proof copy of a play,_a_buffoonery_in_three_acts_(opticals_of_pages,_but_text_is_NOT_clean_copy).djvu&action=edit&redlink=1 Lx 121 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

-- user inappropriately & without discussion removed page-useage tool from a discussion page

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted author's discussion page; abuse of csd:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted author's discussion page (another one); abuse of csd:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted (another) article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

--user inappropriately & without discussion deleted (yet another) article's discussion page; abuse of csd:,_Merritt,_Lovecraft,_Howard,_and_Long)&action=edit&redlink=1

--user inappropriately & without discussion removed page-useage tool from article's discussion page:

-- user inappropriately & without discussion deleted article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

--user inappropriately & without discussion deleted article's discussion page; abuse of csd:

& i think that's everything.

i'm not going to edit-war this.

IF this action is "how things are done" here; & IF this user's actions are supported by the community, i'm done here.

good-bye & good luck; see you @ the next wmf project-review.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

it's also worth mentioning:

this user left a comment on my talkpage, stating they intended to nominate my stuff for deletion; then they apparently just decided to go ahead & delete it unilaterally, instead. so much for "due process" & respecting community procedures. Lx 121 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

& another thing... -- has anyone noticed that this particular admin does a hell of a lot of unsupervised deletions?

i am not clear on how or why this user felt that an 1895 book by Sigmund Frued was "out of scope"?

Lx 121 (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

especially when this particular title is a REDLINK on the author's bibliography-page


Lx 121 (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

& the only title we had on the co-author's page? Lx 121 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the deleted "discussion pages" consisted of page view statistics, and had no discussion whatsoever. If you wish to monitor page view statistics, you can do that from your own user space. There is no need to create dozens of statistics pages to do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
because... -- actually having a tool on the discussion-page to show how much USEAGE an item is getting would be too useful?
clearly, the deleting admin thinks site-page useage imnformation should be buried DEEP; in places that are as inconvenient, obscure, & hard to find as possible.
insert [douglas adams>vogon bureacracy] references here.
& even if you agree with the deleting admin's position, that editor should have opened a discussion about whether the tool should be used, or not.
to go around 'deleting talk pages, & removing content from other talk pages unilaterally & WITHOUT DISCUSSION, is NOT a legitimate use of "csd".
nor is it respectful of other editors; nothing this particular user has done in this case has been "respectful" of other editors. this admin has acted as though ws/en was their private domain, with no accountability for their actions to anyone but themselves.
Lx 121 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I suspect that the "unsupervised" deletion of the Freud article resulted because it was uploaded here instead of at Commons. Wikisource does not house scans unless those scans are eligible here and not eligible to be hosted at Commons. If the source is OK to host at Commons, then it is "out of scope" for us to host it here. We also prefer that articles in journal be added as part of the journal, rather than having hundreds of individual journal pages uploaded individually. However, in this case, there may be more going on, since the 1895 item was written in German, and we do not host German texts. The copy in question was an English translation, and as such may run afoul of separate copyright issues. No publication information was given for the translation, nor was the English translator identified. The file was subsequently deleted for copyright violation by another administrator. So, in fact there are several administrators aware of what is going on, and not just one taking action. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
congratulations, the answer you have given me was worth of Franz Kafka xD!
one observation; how can a published text from 1895 possibly be a copyright violation in the usa? Lx 121 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
A publication from 1895 would not be a copyright violation in the USA, but a later translation into English of that work could be under copyright, depending on when the translation was published, and when the translator died, and whether or not a publisher or illustrator held copyright to material included. For a translation, it's not the date of publication of the original that matters—it's the date of publication for the translation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Before further discussion about Freud goes on, let me point out that no book by Freud was deleted. All that was deleted was a black and white (not greyscale) image titled "Josef Breuer in 1897".--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
May I suggest that, since Lx 121 claims to have gone, we not give them cause to break their resolution by continuing this fruitless discussion? BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
If they're gone, they'll never read this. If they're reading this, they'll reply anyway. In any case, we were wasting time talking about a supposed Freud publication when that wasn't what was deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pune Law College Editathon[edit]

Please have a look at the edits of Wikisource:Internship project at New Law College, Pune. The student group engaged on Index:Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.djvu are just playing with the proofreading mechanism and indiscriminately marking the pages as proofread and validated without actually proofreading the pages. I had reverted the status of some pages and messaged on the talk pages of some of them, but they are not listening. So, admins are requested to have a look. Hrishikes (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

For now, I doubt there is much worthwhile we could do. They seem to be making an effort, but have little or no experience with typesetting. Either some of them will improve with time, or we can run a bot later to mark the pages as either "unproofread" or whatever we decide. But as long as their practice is limited to one or a few documents, it isn't a crisis yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
From my looking at one work, the proofreading is fine. The formatting needs work. So I can see value on putting some indicators on the relevant "Index talk:" pages. Marking them as not proofread is a little harsh compared to giving some feedback on things that need attention. One I am working through and as it is not transcluded it is less of a hassle to have it there with the formatting in that state. We are just going to need to give some help. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Availability of user:wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist[edit]

A reminder for admins that where they wish to have the 'system' partially patrol a user's transcription work that they can add a user and their work to user:wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist. I use it where I know that a person is working well on a particular work, or in a particular namespace, though I am not necessarily comfortable that they have yet captured the essence of all namespaces. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: User:ShakespeareFan00 blocked for one week[edit]

User:ShakespeareFan00 asked me to block them for a period of one week so that they can deal with some personal issues, including migraines. I warned them that this was not the best way to deal with these issues, but decided to do what they asked regardless. I want to make sure that it's known that this is all consensual and there is no drama involved, and has nothing to do with recent discussions about this user at WS:S. For reference, the discussion is at User talk:Beleg Tâl#In relation to my account here., and they also posted a notice on their user page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not a good practice. Users need to be responsible to manage their own editing, rather than asking to be forced. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a great practice, but it is done from time to time. BD2412 T 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not generally good practice, and that we are personally responsible for our own editing behavior; but I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge that as a community, situations may arise where individuals can extend support that is not necessarily technical. But perhaps the best support we can give in those situations is to encourage seeking outside help if necessary. Back in late 2011, I expressed the thought that perhaps I was developing an addiction with regard to my editing at WS. What was actually occurring was the gradual development of a mental health disorder characterized by manic symptoms &c. It may or may not have been evident to members of this community at the time, but my family was tracking, and got me the help I needed. We do not know everyone's unique situation. We're not really a "share the love" sort of community. But I am wearing reading glasses today as a result of a comment BWC made to me some years back that it might be beneficial for me to visit an optometrist due to some issues I had mentioned I was having at the time. Whether it is headaches, vision problems or seeming addictions, etc., there is ample help out there. We just need to be willing to seek it (and be encouraged to do so)—and not be afraid of or ashamed in doing so. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: started a straw poll at WS:S re-asking about that forums use for RFCs[edit]

Today I have put up a straw poll to the community reviewing our use of Scriptorium for complex discussions / RFCs. I have a feeling that the current approach needs confirmation to continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Spamming by bot maybe[edit]

For the past few days, we've had a series of "new users" who immediately create a user page about themselves. In each case, the new page says "Hi I'm X", "I am a / live in Y", and then has a promotional link. These all look suspiciously similar, and I'd be surprised if we were the only project being targeted. Here are some of the user names under which this has happened:

--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Something similar has been happening for a while on the Multilingual Wikisource. @Zyephyrus: Mahir256 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, lots of these patterns have been deleted for years on Never sure whether they are spambots or not but usually they are. --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
These are variants of the ntsamr spambots from a couple of years back. (ntsamr = nothing to say about me really). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I will have a look at them and see if I need to have the spam filters updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Some character spoofing, and some text variations. I have suggested an updated and requested that the global filter be updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Inapropriate deletion procedures[edit]


i seem to be having a problem with one particular administrator who has decided to unilaterally delete legitimate content, without regard for community procedures, without proper notice, etc.

specifically, i have been working on filling up the bibliography for h.l. mencken, a major 20th century american author, for whom we have pitifully few items @ ws; or more specifically, before i started work on his stuff, WS had exactly one item for him.

for an author whose wp/en article page gets thousands of views per month.

& for whom dozens to hundreds of pre-1923 items exist.

i can't access differ for the content this admin has "disappeared",

but here are the differ for the author's biblio page

thus far, this editor has "disappeared" at least 3 sourced items for this author.

please help?

Lx 121 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

additional -- i find that the user has also taken it upon himself to erase discussion pages

specifically, to "make disappear" useage graphs, among other things.

the deletion "rationale" provided is not supported by fact, reality, or ws policy.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Billinghurst hasn't disappeared anything from the author page. In fact he did a useful cleanup job. The "Gamalielise" link he commented out was already linked to from the Columns section. His other changes a) added a link to an external scan for one work b) delinked a redlink, but left its entry and added an external scan to it, as well as other wikification and formatting. BethNaught (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
actually, no -- idk if you have access to deleted or "wiped" items, but if you examine the diffs carefully, you will find the following:
i. user inappropriately deleted the article *"A Short View of Gamalielese" The Nation, April 27, 1921 ; without discussion, or etc.; mis-use of csd
ii. user inappropriately deleted the article *"The American Language" (book review of American English by Gilbert M. Tucker) The Bookman, June, 1921 ; without discussion, or etc.; mis-use of csd
iii. user incorrectly altered the biblio to MIS-IDENTIFY this 2nd article as "about mencken", when all the information clearly stated that the article was a book review WRITTEN BY mencken.


This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hostile IP[edit]

In general, Wikisource seems delightfully drama-free. However, a hostile IP editor has recently showed up and is beginning to wreak havoc at my userpage [2], at Translation talk:Genesis [3], at the Translation of Exodus itself [4], and [5].

It is the editor's firm belief that they understand biblical Hebrew intuitively, simply because they (claim that) they speak Modern Hebrew "fluently", and that therefore when they disagree scholarly precedent on some issue, the scholars are all just "idiots" (the editor's words). I would normally start by discussing disagreements with people, but his tone makes that look difficult, and the extreme confidence paired with not knowing the subject makes me less than optimistic.

Do you have any advice for how I should proceed? The editor is mostly wrong when he makes factual claims, and I could try to explain them bit by bit, but what has already happened so far doesn't make me very hopeful.

I am more knowledgeable about Wikipedia norms than I am about Wikisource norms, so please let me know if I accidentally make some of mistake here. Alephb (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alephb. Thanks for raising the matter. I doubt that there are many of us regular users and administrators that can be much help in the matter of Hebrew translations, especially old Hebrew. We would encourage any discussion to take place on the pertinent talk page, as has been done, though we would hope that it was respectful, and parts of the current discourse do not seem to be. For the content discussions, all I can suggest is seek another opinion to the conversation, and approach a consensus. That may be a ping to heWS to see if someone would like to comment.

For the user themself, we can ask them to be respectful, which is our WS norm, and if they are unable to have that consideration, then we can take administrative action, though that is the last resort and down the track. We generally don't have heated disputes here, as the interaction of our work is less inclined to such circumstance. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hiuser:billinghurst. heWS might be handy, although in this case the problem isn't ability to understand modern Hebrew, but knowledge of biblical Hebrew. If we arrive at an impass, would it be appropriate to place a note up at, say, w:WP:BIBLE or w:WP:JUDAISM asking for someone with some knowledge of biblical Hebrew to chime in? Or is Wikisource its own separate kingdom? Alephb (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
We are not an island, we are all part of WMF, and as such we operate on consensus for something like a translation. We try maintain an open mind. So my suggestion is if we cannot achieve the knowledge with local resources, we drop the pebble into other ponds to put out ripples there. I don't mind where you ask for comment to find the relevant knowledge, all is welcome here; we hope that it is undertaken respectfully, and if it involves discussion that talk pages are used. For our translation namespace, we haven't developed a methodology to capture difference of opinion in a translation, and it is something that we should consider. That said, we are not purporting to be an academic site, we are a site where translations can be made of public domain, non-English works that are not available in English. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. So far on the Bible project, the approach has been to use footnotes at places where the text is unclear. I'll see how things go and go from there. Alephb (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I arrive here from a request at w:WT:JUDAISM. For the moment I'm not going to get directly involved in this whole fight. (FWIW, I think Alephb is probably mostly in the right content-wise. I couldn't yet say whether or not the IP occasionally has a point from a content perspective, but a contrary point of view is hardly "stupid".) That said, I'm kind of appalled at the disrespectful, uncivil behavior on the part of the IP. I don't think anyone should have to fight through that while dealing with content disputes. On wikis where I am a sysop I would have warned (and lacking a change, blocked) on behavioral grounds long ago. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: I would have an expectation that a user upset with their treatment would be the first to express the dissatisfaction to the user. It simply doesn't need the intervention of an admin at that first point. If we have a continued aspect of problematic behaviour then I can see that an intervention could be required, though a one-off set of edits from an IP address (no prior history, no post history) should be managed as solely that. If it continues and at the same IP address then there is means to address such. We also do not have a history of appalling behaviour and we have not had an issue calling out such behaviour where it does exist.

Administrators are simply users with extra tools, community standards come from the community and start with the users themselves. Administrators are not the first level of problem solving, of issue resolution, nor here to conduct punishment. In this situation my view and approach may be different if I saw a regular member of the community beating up on a newbie.

Apart from that, I think that you need to timeline the commentary here with the edits elsewhere, first raised we had one edit on a user page (hardly wreaking havoc) and a small series of edits on one day from an IP. Alephb has not made comment to the user about their approach, and no-one else is particularly working in that area. Yes we need to watch it, and any member of this community is able to make comment to the IP address that it is not how we conduct conversations around here. Umm, long ago??? There I think that you can dismount your high horse, I doubt that aligns with the reality of the situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

By "long ago", @StevenJ81: may be referring to the fact that the IP has been around in the past, under other IP numbers, being uncivil as early as 2010. The IP was gone for a while and recently reappeared. The fact that the IP had been here for years was in the diffs, with the IP themselves claiming responsibility for edits stretching back several years, but perhaps I should have been more explicit about it. My phrasing "recently arrived" was unfortunate -- I should have said "recently reappeared." Anyhow, I posted here not to ask for a ban or anything, but just to ask in an open-ended way for advice because I was aware that Wikisource operated a bit differently from other Wikis. In particular, I came here because I know the Wikisource community was very small, appeared less bureaucratic than Wikipedia, and I figured I could get pointers from people who'd been around here longer and had some experience here. I got pointers, I learned what the appropriate next steps were in terms of Wikisource, and I've started taking them. If this was an inappropriate venue, I apologize.
And in particular, if it was my cloudy communication that got StevenJ81 accused of being "on a high horse," my apologies for that as well. Alephb (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As for "wreaking havoc," that's probably a phrase I should not have used with the general public. If I used it with anybody who had any significant training in ancient Hebrew, it would have instantly made sense. The angry tone is combined with a serious level of confusion about the subjects involved, to the extent that "wreaking havoc" would probably have made sense in Hebrew-educated company, but would not be obvious to others. Alephb (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: I don't see that you have any for which to apologise, I saw you coming here seeking guidance, and I thought it was given, and this is a little more likely to get experienced perspective than our VP equivalent. I have no issue with your requests, nor your approach, it seems quite mature and reasonable in the circumstance. The extended explanation and clarification does put a different perspective on the first set of statements, and may have slightly changed the advice, but not excessively. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Improved search in deleted pages archive[edit]

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this:

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Does a page protection count as an edit w.r.t. our policy on admin inactivity?[edit]

From Wikisource:Restricted_access_policy#Inactivity:

An "inactive administrator" is one who has not edited during the past six months and has not made more than 50 edits during the last year.

GorillaWarfare is up for admin confirmation. She protected her talk page in May. Aside from that, she has not edited in the past six months, and has only two edits during the last year. I am going to list her as active for now, pending consensus here.

Hesperian 00:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I would (reluctantly) call "active". The point of inactivity is to keep admin accounts protected from hacking and such. However, I would still allow that such an admin might be deemed to be "out of touch" with current WS policies for doing nothing here but protecting their own talk page in a sufficiently long span of time. That, however, is a different discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Can I trouble an admin for a NOTHERE block?[edit]

This doesn't look the account of someone legitimately here to contribute.

Can I trouble an admin to administer an appropriate NOTHERE block? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: Done by Hrishikes. BD2412 T 15:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Urgent: Made a mistake when importing, will need help to clean up mess[edit]

I was trying to import File:The Canadian soldiers' song book.djvu from Commons, and flagged the "include templates" option... and it imported a whole pile of stuff including overwriting some common templates like {{PD-old}}. I can delete the stuff that shouldn't have been imported but I'm not sure whether I can figure out how to revert the stuff that was overwritten. Any assistance would be appreciated.—See Special:Log/import for details. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Where did you import Template:PD-old? I see an import record for File:PD-old, but that's in the File: namespace, and shouldn't have overwritten anything. We generally don't put stuff in the File namespace. But I'm not seeing the record for the Template, even though I can see a change in the edit history with 63 imports listed. I'm not sure there is a simple way to "undo import", or even a complicated way to do it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I have done a quick and dirty cleanup, leaving parts where there is complexity. We should check where these components are or are not working, and make some notes. We are going to need to resolve the translation component, but not for me for now. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Beleg Tâl: you cannot import the file, all you will get is the information template and components. One needs to utilise the file transfer methods. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    That file is now local and will need to be updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Abuse of power[edit]

Was just blanket-blocked from the entire site for days while in the middle of a project by User:EncycloPetey in violation of any actual policy. He's generally a force for good, but a something to keep in mind for if such abuse becomes a pattern of misbehavior and b someone kindly fix it.

[The specifics were his overprotectiveness (going 1RR) concerning the idea that the namespace odes of Pindar should only link to works entitled The Odes of Pindar rather than linking to Wikisource's actual translations of the odes of Pindar. a That should not be bannable in the first place; b a blanket ban (instead of a ban on that namespace) means that it's impossible to post anything to the Scriptorium for general discussion; c he's simply wrong w/r/t to what that namespace should be. If we need a page exclusively about works entitled The Odes of Pindar that does not include the odes of Pindar, it should include the definite article in the title.]


You are deliberately circumventing a block, which is grounds alone for extending a block. You knew that you were editing a disambiguation page, and what disambiguation pages were for, but violated policy anyway topping it off with snarky comments in the diff [6]. When your error and policy were pointed out to you, suggesting that you could propose a change to policy in the Scriptorium, you instead argued [7] then immediately reverted anyway [8].
We already have policies in place about the presence / absence of article words in the titles of disambiguation pages. If you would care to follow those policies, it would be appreciated. If you would like those policies to change, then please propose and discuss the change first. Disrupting a project to prove a point or to force a policy change is generally bad form.
It is not possible to apply a block to a single namespace. Sorry that you are out of touch about that. You have not been banned, you have been blocked, but it you persist in disruptive behavior a longer block may be applied next time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: if you are blocking a user with an extended editing history, I would find it useful for you, as the person acting for the community, to let the community know that you are doing this. We are in this together, and we should not be considering things as a series of unilateral actions. That LlywelynII is argumentative, has their own way of thinking that things should be done is known to numbers of us, and has been discussed. If that editor continues to go outside editing guidelines then there will always be a day of decision-making on which way the community wishes to act. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Is there a preferred means for communicating such a message to the community? If so, then a note about it on the Blocking policy page would come in handy should a similar situation arise in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It has always been using this forum where we have dropped such a note of heads-up and FYI. It is our noticeboard. Fortunately we don't do it very often. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I mention this as I always have a level of discomfort where an administrator and an editor are in a bit of a biffo over editing, and the administrator then blocks the user. You have a vested interest in the page and its formatting, so you should be looking for the community to take actions rather than look to be judge and jury. A month's block in this situation is completely excessive. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no vested interest in any specific disambiguation page; I always try to format them according to the guidance and feedback that I have gotten from exploring disambiguation style with other users here. In particular, leading off a disambiguation page with something that isn't being disambiguated is poor form, and the relegation of related links of interest to a "See also" section was proposed to me by another editor; it is not my own idea. Nor should the text of a disambiguation page be so written as to confuse the reader as to whether it is a dismabiguation page or a translations page. These are completely separate sorts of pages with different templates and serving different functions. These statements are true regardless of what is being disambiguated.
If it is felt that a shorter block is more suitable, I'm am certainly open to that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @LlywelynII: A disambiguation page is solely about disambiguating a name of a work, no different here than other wikis It is hard to undertake that conversation into this discussion, and I would prefer that such a discussion took place at WS:S. Accordingly I will leave that component out of this discussion.

It is a shame that you didn't try that route for resolution as requested. rather than stamping your foot and thinking that you should just reimpose your edits. The places for discussion about pages is always the relevant talk page, or Scriptorium. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect, 1RR is not "edit warring" and I was taking it to the talk page when I was blocked. This happened over the span of 3 minutes and Pete's first resort was not discussion (which I did at that moment in the edit comments and which he did not) but a blanket ban on the whole site while I was in the middle of a separate project.
I know very well what a dab page is for. The odes of Pindar are the name of a work on that page, but none of the copies on Wikisource are currently directly linked to it. I can't bring it up on Scriptorium because, again, completely blanket ban.
If it's just a personal issue about misunderstanding a particular page or just dislike for me, I guess it's annoying to me but no skin off your nose. It should be telling, however, that Pete notified no one and then proceeded to threaten me with a further ban just for bringing the abuse of power to the attention of his fellow mods and doing nothing else anywhere on the site for days. I guess no one cares to correct his action and let me get on with formatting Plutarch but, in any case, something to keep in mind if it comes up with other less thick skinned editors. It's very off-putting and all the more so when he's wrong w/r/t to every point of this: "edit warring", "discussion", and the underlying issue about giving clear links to the work being dabbed.-LlywelynII
It's true that I didn't discuss the issue in the edit comments, but that's because that's not what edit comments of for. The edit comments are meant to describe the nature of the change made in the edit, not to hold a conversation with another user. I took the discussion to your user page, because that's an appropriate place for a discussion.
Once again, you have not been given a "blanket ban", you have been blocked. The warning about a longer ban was made on your talk page here, and gives the reasons for the warning clearly. Your misinterpretation of it is unwarranted.
If there should be links to a dab page, then altering the dab page does not fix that. Generally, we do not make direct links to dab pages. If you do have an underlying issue that truly is important to you, then raise that issue, instead of hinting towards it at the end of your comments.
It's more telling that when I came here to post, you had already launched an attack thread. Almost as if your edits were calculated to cause trouble and you expected to be blocked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment EncycloPetey: I do not understand why LlywelynII is still blocked. I dropped a hint that a month was excessive, and the block is initially in your control. Is this something you are going to address or do you need direction from the community?

    This is not the place to discuss disambiguation pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have gone through the diffs that led to this block and I believe that it comes under the controversial blocks section of our Blocking Policy, specifically the second bullet point. The guideline for excessive reverts is 24 hours for a first offence—which this is. [While the user has made controversial reverts previously, this is the first time in respect to translations of Latin texts.] The blocking reason is given as "disruptive editing". However, the criteria of the disruption section of the policy were not met. A three day block (not 1 month) in these circumstances can be regarded as punitive, which we don't do. I recommend the blocking admin lift the block before it expires. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

IP editor[edit]

This editor is harassing me and others on multiple projects and has now come here. I don't even edit here much, but I'm trying to get him stopped. Can he please be blocked, possibly globally? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I came here to report the same. He's removed my speedy tags; please delete the pages he's created. Guanaco (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for now. This user is a persistent harasser apparently abusing the notification system through English Wikisource, who is willing to wait out page protections. I'm putting longer protections than had been made in the past, but since many of the targeted users aren't active users on English Wikisource I wonder if it would be appropriate to just make them indefinite. Prosody (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Prosody: In my experience Indefinite blocks are not the way to go, especially with a one-off provocative set of troll posts. Even more so, we would normally try to avoid indefinite blocks on IP addresses, they are truly of limited value (won't expand on the topic unless asked). I have changed to a month, and if it is a dynamic IP address allocation that is probably ten times longer than it needs to be. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I referred to Wikisource:Blocking policy#Personal attacks when making the block, and given that this isn't a one-off occurrence but a months-long pattern (see Favonian's talk page) I'm pretty comfortable with indefinite blocking. But you're right about IP addresses so it's moot. I'll keep that point in mind in the future. Prosody (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6, @Guanaco: We are always happy to and will deal with local harassment, though is best-managed in consultation with stewards. Otherwise you are just playing whack-a-mole. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all. The IP has been globally blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 20:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Disable Dynamic Navigation Bars by default[edit]

I’ve cleaned up the remaining NavFrames, so this gadget is no longer needed for the majority of users. It might be kept in order to make it possible to watch old page versions, but it’s not important enough to slow down Wikisource for everyone. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? --Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: But you haven’t removed it yet. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
How do I remove it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Just remove the |default text (with the preceding pipe, but without the following square bracket) from the appropriate line of MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition#interface. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Notice of checkuser action[edit]

In accordance with your local checkuser policy, I'm writing here to let you know that I've just checked and locked some wp0 abusers/spammers on this wiki. Regards, RadiX 20:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)