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 = 2,123,867
No. of articles = 610,894
No. of files = 20,440
No. of edits = 6,763,741

No. of pages in Main = 358,847
No. of pages in Page: = 1,433,836
No. validated in Page: = 298,206
No. proofread in Page: = 434,930
No. not proofread in Page: = 559,584
No. problematic in Page: = 25,902
No. of validated works = 2,372
No. of proofread only works = 1,311
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 147,923
% transcluded pages in Main = 41.22
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,802,763
No. of active users = 379
No. of group:autopatrolled = 435
No. in group:sysop = 32
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 28

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 proggress directly of 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)

PDF generation issues; do we (temporarily) amend link?[edit]

A second report of PDF generation issues has been received. There is another at WS:Scriptorium/Help. I haven't had time to play with the print output to see if we have generated the problem, or it is more underlying in the extension. If we cannot get an immediate solution, then maybe we should be looking to change the link to use wsexport tool, with a reconfigured link. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ensuring transclusions of proofread and validated works[edit]

Has anyone thought of a systematic means to ensure that our proofread and validated works are actually transcluded? We have our checking tools that can be manually run, though I don't know that they are necessarily are being run when a work has been validated, or a work has been proofread. Either way, having it done manually is a tedious task, and I am wondering if people have ideas on how we can do this systematically. I have a sneaking feeling that there are works that are sneaking through 1) untranscluded, or 2) untranscluded completely.

Once we have this information, we may be able to use this to look to manage the population of data to WD for the works, which is another task that we need to address. If we cannot work on this, then I suggest that we look to do some phabricator tasks to determine out our requirements with our colleagues through the Wikisources. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I came across an untranscluded work this weekend, but for which the entire text had been proofread. But I think this is only the second time I've seen one of those. No ideas that I've had for checking transclusion by bot seem properly feasible to me. The best I can suggest is generating a list of Index files (on suitably sized pages) and use MotM to go through as many as possible.
What about checking, for a given Index, that each page in Page ns is linked to a page in Main ns whose title starts with the same prefix specified in Index Title? I think this should cover most cases. (I was just simplify, rule needs to exclude empty pages etc. but just to give the gist of it)— Mpaa (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, nice, though maybe we don't need to be so neat? As we are wanting an indicator to check a work, if we can even identify a number of pages in a work, that is enough to get us to investigate … so where index:PAGENAME is in Category:Index Validated or Category:Index Proofread but not in Category:Fully transcluded and a Page:PAGENAME/{d}+ of the index is in Category:Proofread or Category:Validated is not marked as transcluded, tag the Index: to be investigated. Once investigated it is resolved and marked as being fully transcluded. How complex is that as a query? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
A pywikibot script is not complex (it requires many API calls per index though). I should see if it is possible to solve this with one or two SQL queries on a given index. Maybe someone with more SQL experience can find a solution meanwhile.— Mpaa (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I (think) I might have found a solution based on two queries (Page:xxx/\d+ transcluded in Main ns) and (Page:xxx/\d+ in Cat:Pr, Val); and then compare the two sets of pages. Needs to run on tool-labs. I need to check this a bit more and then we might scan all the indexes as WS-bot and tag the suspects. Will elaborate more soon. I can post the skeleton of the code somewhere if someone is interested.— Mpaa (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tested this a bit, it should be OK. There are cases where a validated page (e.g. a cover or and Adv) is not transcluded so this will give a fails (e.g. Page:A Christmas Carol.djvu/198). If this logic is good enough, I can port this into a pywikibot-like bot and then we run it over the Proofread/Validated Indexes. Can you specify a bit better how you would like to tag pass/fail and with which template?— Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, I think I am good to go (made a few trials, see [1])— Mpaa (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, I am currently marking as "Fully Transcluded" Indexes where not trascluded pages are 'Without text' only. Later on, I will make a second round for more complex cases (BTW I have revised the queries above, as I found several other cases to be handled). In the next step, I will mark as "Fully Transcluded" also in case not transcluded pages are 'Not transcluded'/'Without text'.
Would be nice to have a gadget to quickly add Category:Not transcluded at the end of the footer, so manual checking with 'checker' will be a lot faster. After marking the pages, the bot can be run again to take care of the indexes.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It was a maintenance tasks started years ago, where I added things manually to Category:Fully transcluded, though I have now migrated that check to {{index validated date}} with the parameter transcluded=yes and have created a negative flag category. This will cover validated works, and I will look at proofread at some point, though we could just do a standalone template. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
To close the loop, I have also created {{index transcluded}} which if says YES, does as above, if you say no, or leave empty it populates Category:Transclusion check required. If it is useful, we can bot apply it, and also add it to the Index: template as a default. I will leave the community to ponder. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as WD, the little that I've worked on has proven to me that this is a very tricky thing that cannot be easily automated (if at all). Even for the small set of works I've dealt with, the amount of preparatory work is enormous. Much of it involved disambiguation (sometimes creating more than one disambig. page per title), matching the correct targets at both ends (if they even existed), setting meaningful descriptions (which isn't as straightforward as I expected), and creating version / edition / translation data items there. Pushing information on our works through to WD is going to be a very, very big project. As I say, the work I've been doing is taking much more effort than expected, and I'm dealing with only 44 plays and 4 authors (the entire corpus of surviving ancient Greek drama). I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to tackle a larger chunk of this stuff. We really need a way to (1) chunk the project suitably as smaller tasks, (2) decide what exactly we want to send over, and (3) ensure beforehand that our side doesn't include errors / inconsistencies, such as different dates on different pages of a work, or (worse) incorrect titles such I have come across several times while doing the Greek drama data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with you re the complexity, especially with no feedback loop. I think that we need a push tool (a gadget?) that allows the form entry of data from the Index: page with a feedback loop to what is in and WD, and/or what is not. Ideally I would like to have the data in WD first, then create a book template, like the creator tool, then create the Index page and continue to populate from the book template, or directly from WD. <shrug> I have been working my way through the works that I have done, and that is my labelling of {{wikidata edition}} so I know the works where I have more fully populated the edition's WD item.
In my limited data set (44 plays), I've come across (a) incorrect titles, (b) incorrect years of publication, (c) missing edition information, and all of that at our end. Now while it is true that wrong data is wrong data, I wouldn't want to be pushing all that information over to Wikidata without a means of ensuring that corrections in one place prompt a correction at the other project. We'd also need some mechanism for distinguishing original first editions of English-native works from all those wroks which are originally non-English and have been translated, or those works which exist here in a later edition than their first. Such works have a different data structure at Wikidata, where there is a central data item for the "original", and edition data items for all other editions, including translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Initial matter resolved. Nothing else happening here with this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:46, 1 January 2017 (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)

PotM administration[edit]

RL has become somewhat busy recently and doesn't look like reducing for at least the next couple of months (it's nothing to do with my health, for those who might panic about this, rather music, work and the enWS widow all need attention). This means that I'm unable to provide administration of the PotM and awards for a while. Could someone else please take over for a bit? I'm happy to answer questions and provide some guidance. Administration of PotM entails making the final decision on which work(s) has been selected for the month, putting the work into the PotM and Collaboration templates, maintaining WS:PotM, welcoming new contributors, and making the monthly participation awards. For this last, I've been keeping an offline list of participants in a Word document. None of the tasks require a sysop level of access, but they seem to fall more naturally to us because we tend to be higher contributors anyway.

I'm yet to do the February awards, but should have time over the Easter break to do so. I have made no record of the March contributions to the Prime Minister's Wives, which started late. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: For me, the most important question is, how the monthly work is selected? Is there a pool of works from which you select? Is it based on interest of the community? — Ineuw talk 14:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Selecting is a simpler matter, and isn't at issue. We have a whole discussion page for that, and works are usually discussed well in advance. Beeswaxcandle is asking for someone to handle posting of awards to participants, which is a process he's mostly done himself. This happens after a PotM has concluded, and it requires keeping track of the PotM participants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
BWC's request was understood. I am concerned about the process of selection. The rest is administrative work and that doesn't worry me. — Ineuw talk 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Etiquette would be to start a separate thread on that topic, instead of holding that discussion here. BWC is seeking help on a particular issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Selection is based on assessing the suggestions and discussions at the PotM talk page. If there is no clear "winner", then I've selected the one that I think will appeal to the widest group of contributors. I've also tried to ensure a variety of topics, style and region of origin, based on the interests of our contributors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (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)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 1 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)

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

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)