Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help.
  • Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
  • This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page.
  • Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 2,234,753
No. of articles = 635,075
No. of files = 20,241
No. of edits = 7,089,806

No. of pages in Main = 376,311
No. of pages in Page: = 1,520,175
No. validated in Page: = 343,549
No. proofread in Page: = 456,762
No. not proofread in Page: = 568,791
No. problematic in Page: = 27,090
No. of validated works = 2,681
No. of proofread only works = 1,320
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 165,331
% transcluded pages in Main = 43.93
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,822,817
No. of active users = 313
No. of group:autopatrolled = 446
No. in group:sysop = 32
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 21

Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to undertaken by stewards
    • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
    • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
    • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]


Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

The more I read up on this RL change and the subsequent actions needed (or taken?), the more I get the feeling some of my approach to site wide & gadget .js/.css organization over the months is going to behind this week's latest problems. If that winds up to be the case, then I'm truly, truly sorry for that. Let me try to document those steps and the reasoning behind them in hopes someone (@Krinkle:) can made sense of our current state and put us on the right path post RL change(s).

Originally, we not only had a ridiculous amount of scripting and .css definitions in our primary site-wide MediaWiki files to begin with but also called a number of stand-alone .js/.css files within those primary MediaWiki files called unnecessarily in addition to calls to various sub-scripts on top of any User: selected gadgets being called -- some of which eventually became default loaded per concensus, etc..

A simple depiction of the key files mentioned minus any Gadgets basically went like this...

Over several months with help of other folks, I began to consolidate and/or eliminate as much scripting calls as I could -- creating optional Gadgets whenever possible -- and tried much the same for the .css class definitions. The rationale behind doing this can be found in several places, most importantly: Wikipedia. The premise to keep the MediaWiki site-wide files "lean" goes like this....

 * Keep code in MediaWiki:Common.js to a minimum as it is unconditionally
 * loaded for all users on every wiki page. If possible create a gadget that is
 * enabled by default instead of adding it here (since gadgets are fully
 * optimized ResourceLoader modules with possibility to add dependencies etc.)
 * Since Common.js isn't a gadget, there is no place to declare its
 * dependencies, so we have to lazy load them with mw.loader.using on demand and
 * then execute the rest in the callback. In most cases these dependencies will
 * be loaded (or loading) already and the callback will not be delayed. In case a
 * dependency hasn't arrived yet it'll make sure those are loaded before this.

The result of that effort as it stands today can be depicted basically like this....

The predominant change in order to move towards the previously cited rationale & approach is that the bulk of the scripting and class definitions now reside in the default-enabled Site gadget files, MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. And by no means is the current state the desired final approach; its been a work in progress as time allowed over several months.

Obviously, now with the recent change to Gadgets and ResourceLoader, either the existing rationale or my attempts (or both) are no longer in harmony -- if they ever were. In my view, we need someone like Krinkle (or maybe the collective minds of Wikitech-l?) to take the time and attention needed to come in here and straighten all this out -- one way or the other. My gut tells me THAT will resolve the reported loss of one thing or another post-RL change(s). Again, if I'm right about my actions exacerbating problems for other, I apologize and take full responsibility. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes in addition to yours that hopefully make things work a bit more like you intended. I'm happy to provide further guidance but that probably works better for a more specific need or question. Perhaps bring it up on Wikitech-l or on IRC so we I can help you move forward with any unresolved issues. Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Transclusion display change — right margin[edit]

I am looking at some transcluded chapters, eg. Chartism/Chapter 10 and I see that we now have an indented right margin (~90%???) and full formatting rather than left formatting (jagged right edge). Has someone made a local change or have we inherited something along the way? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: do you know where this has occurred? I cannot see local change, and then working out where the formatting occurs is unknown to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps something similar with this left margin which was not on my user's page and appeared recently without my knowing how or why? I've had a similar surprise on the French wikisource too. --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
For whatsoever this is worth (probably not much) this "change" in the right margin is most definitely (Java)Script driven rather than a CSS change (load the page with javascript disabled: result renders fine without restriction on right margin.) I think I may have gotten to the bottom of this although I'll leave others to add the reasoning for why the changes were made:
  • MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css has specified a right-margin of 3em forever (well since at least May, 2015 which is as far back as I have checked)—per
    body.ns-0 div#regionContainer {
    	position: relative;
    	display: block;
    	box-sizing: border-box;
    	margin-right: 3.00em;
    	margin-left: 3.00em;
  • MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js has attempted to enable the above since forever but using buggy code which appears to have been "fixed" in this change on 1st January, 2016.
The net result is as observed, at least as far as English wikisource is concerned. AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The issue for me is the header template now is wider than the body component, so when items are centred in both, there is no alignment it looks buggy to my eyes. Does that also explain the fully justified page formatting, rather than the left alignment? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Pardon. I understood the "okay with frown" part: I was only reporting the status quo as I observe it: with the expectation it might give the appropriate users the sensitive points at which further change might best be implemented should they (you?) so choose. However I completely fail to understand your comment and thus cannot help further. AuFCL (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2016 (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.


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 [1], at Translation talk:Genesis [2], at the Translation of Exodus itself [3], and [4].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [5]. 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 [6] then immediately reverted anyway [7].
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)

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)