Jump to content

Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2010

Add links
From Wikisource

Checkuser notification

Log

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments1 person in discussion
Users Results
121.97.74.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) adds spam urls Found a (shallow) history of spam urls from the accounts over 5 or so months. A number of accounts at IP address: one good edit, a couple of spam edits. Further exploration required, and will blacklist urls. billinghurst (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
IP range 121.97.74.128/30 belongs to a Phillipines technical college and there is evidence of crosswiki spamming. Applied anonymous block, 12 months, allowing to create accounts and review as necessary. billinghurst (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
RaclaPasc4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
BaspaSbasa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
RolnoCnare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) 		Bot like accounts. X-checked with other WMF projects. Blocked. billinghurst (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Oiljobszone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Caught by Yann, looks opportunistic, no evidence of open proxy. rDNS unhelpful. billinghurst (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Code (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Checking IP shows, same source as Dwight Orange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) 3 days ago. Adding extended block on IP address. Will need to watch in case IP address renewed in similar block billinghurst (talk)
Bob Steel: Reporter for NYN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) same IP as HornyGoatWeedSeller2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) and HornyGoatWeedSeller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) from a week ago. Added extended IP block, reported in case interwiki vandalbillinghurst (talk)
KyleBeals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Checked and logged. Reported and blocked as crosswiki vandal billinghurst (talk)
41.212.9.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) external spam Identified one account which has been blocked infinitely, and blocked IP for 24 hrs. billinghurst (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Anthony19452.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Edited from two different IPs, shows crosswiki abuse, reported to Stewards. Has dropped me an email too. Nice. billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Presumably the same Anthony as #User:Anthony 5432 billinghurst sDrewth
Badmancad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL), + Heyitsfred! + Classic Styled Sticks Globally blocked. Example of vandalism, known crosswiki vandal, who utilises a dynamic IP within a known block, if recurs consistently, we could look to broader measures at the agreement of the community. billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Mr Leone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Same as Badmancad. Locked account, protected all templates used in the MediaWiki namespace. —Pathoschild 00:37:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Areasleep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) + other reports from CheckUsers Globally blocked — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
122.59.233.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Hardblocked, no account creation, for a period of time, other related spam— billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a half-bred son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

My Half-Bred Son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
Father of the half-bred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
I'm had a son with a goat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

Also found 5 other sockpuppet accounts, all same IP at a high school (blocked for a week, default setting, feel welcome to modify). So either same person or with mates. All accounts infinitely blocked.
Upped it to two months for abuse of account creation privileges and prior threatening/harassing language. ResScholar (talk)

back as My Half-Bred Son (talk • contribs). Identified source, compared it with previous incursion, and modified an extended block. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
This and another, from outside of the original network, have taken further remedial actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Extended block on IP

Balder Dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Asspus vandal back. Account blocked, IP address checked. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Bizz News (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Spamming, check for similarity to other recent spam of similar type. Nothing conclusive.
Return of vandal Previous IP block expired 3 wks ago, and they have returned. I have done some analysis of the IP addresses used and put a couple of more targeted blocks in place, though for a longer period. Admins should be able to see the blocks in place and replicate or broaden as necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Cro-mag rally+++
User:AsshoIe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)}}
 Hesperian did the deed; checked against recent trolls. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked by ResScholar. Identifed by CU as the same user. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Have anybody seen my son? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Associated with I have a half-bred son, extended IP block — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

SUL rename/usurpation requests

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bots

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User talk:72.219.254.131 request

On their user page they ask can the IP edits be merged with their user account. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Other

"ass pus" vandal

The "ass pus" vandal is back as Rubber Hammer (talk • contribs). --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. Done with the block. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be back as Sam Snockey. --Xxagile (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Done-- billinghurst (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
and User:South Hammer. Done -- billinghurst (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Back as Puck Muddle (talk • contribs). --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked that account, and run a CU. No other accounts turned up. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Back as Vorbis Lux (talk • contribs). --Ixfd64 (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Prosfilaes got it. -- billinghurst (talk)
Back as 200.72.30.210 (talk • contribs). Temp block on the IP. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Back as Mujaro (talk • contribs). Blocked. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"ass pus" vandal


User:Anthony 5432

I blocked this user for impersonating an admin, which does not fit easily within any of our predefined reasons for imposing a block, but nevertheless seems quite improper and misleading to legitimate users of the site. I’m happy to have my actions reviewed or altered by another admin if I have acted precipitously. Tarmstro99 (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems totally reasonable, especially in context of reviewing http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=Anthony+5432 which seems to indicate crosswiki troll. I'll see if it has been discussed more globally. billinghurst (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Account has now been globally blocked by stewards, and results on account generated an analysed and passed on to other wikis. billinghurst (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
WS:BP#Disruption covers misleading edits & impersonation , seems like it would fit. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

User:HornyGoatWeedSeller

HornyGoatWeedSeller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Needs to be blocked. Disruptive edits.--Xxagile (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Back again as HornyGoatWeedSeller2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL), did CU, and have now blocked 198.36.23.95 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) for a week. billinghurst (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
addendum, no other edits from ip, and whois shows that it looks like a US school. billinghurst (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Djkandal Again

Indefinitely blocked, obvious returning vandal. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion of Djkandal Again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) here & noted block on user page. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
It is Butthead vandal again Wikisource:Administrator's noticeboard/Archives/2009#Butthead vandal, I will block for a long period and notify to other checkusers. billinghurst (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The block here had been pretty broad at 59.93.0.0/16; in analysing the abuse IP, I am tightening the parameters in use to 59.93.192.0/19. We can fall back to the broader parameters if necessary. billinghurst (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

TJ Hawkins

TJ Hawkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)--Disruptive edits. --Xxagile (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Lloigor

The Lloigor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)--Disruptive edits. --Xxagile (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Did CU, and nothing extra to see. Resolves to domain …ci.cerritos.ca.us billinghurst (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

69.125.206.205

69.125.206.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)--Disruptive edits. --Xxagile (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Done billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Back as Peezoup (talk • contribs). --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked. Cirt (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Back as 79.125.11.59 (talk • contribs). Temp block on the IP. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Back as 217.169.176.180 (talk • contribs). Temp block on the IP. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Time to think about a different option than blocking these as they come up? Cirt (talk) 04:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Back as 193.171.32.6 (talk • contribs). Temp block on IP. Wrt the block, yes and no. They are just doing to p. us off, and if we can watch where they do it, it makes it easier to clean, rather than having to have it disappear in the noise. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Back as Pudding Hammer (talk • contribs) -> blocked billinghurst (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Back as 190.102.206.48 (talk • contribs) Temp block on the IP. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Back as Semperbluxo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL). Blocked with IP. IP address previously used for Sam Snookey, same vandal. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
back as Hammer of Goats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL). Zyeph caught and fixed. First time at IP address. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Cleaned that up: 15:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
blocked. Tarmstro99 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
CU'd & first abuse from that address. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The words "ASS PUS" still show up on {{multicol}}. What gives? --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, it seems all I had to do was purge the template. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think it would be a good idea to create a template that would output automatically to a category, such as w:Template:Sockpuppet, and the like. This way, we could keep track of all of the socks / pattern vandals - in one category. This would also be very helpful with regards to monitoring cross-wiki-project vandalism. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment, though maybe it is more like w:Template:Blockedsockpuppet, however, find one that you like and it can be brought over. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems this guy has decided to leave us alone for now, since he hasn't caused us any trouble in about three weeks. Unfortunately, I suspect he will be back some time in the near future, though. :\ --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsure of Edits

Recent change patrol found these edits http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.141.112.117 Without dobut they are questionable (IP editing on two user sub pages) I am not sure if they are helpful or vandalism. Jeepday (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're either. They're python scripts, so labeling that in the code is a very minor improvement, the code changes seem well-intended and probably correct, but they are changing (presumably) working code to (presumably) untested code.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverted edits Jeepday (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

User:The Code

The Code (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Needs to be blocked. Disruptive edits.--Xxagile (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User is blocked. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

IP Page blanking

Found an IP http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.47.133.94 blanking talk pages for very simular addresses, I am included to leave the pages blanked as most likely a single user deleting content related to themselves. Thoughts? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most probably. This IP should be blocked if the behaviour continues. Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Rolled back the edits. This person is a known crosswiki cyberstalker (I-210 (talk • contribs), + IPs) who brings their issues here when blocked elsewhere (eg. with Rschen7754 (talk • contribs) WP admin); I believe that they call this person "The Highwayman" on WP (many similar socks). Person is on a dynamic IP with large ISP which is slightly problematic. Known to make an inflammatory comment, then immediately blank it. billinghurst (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I would say, block at sight then. Yann (talk) 12:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Back today as 75.47.148.166 (talk • contribs) repeating activities. For the moment watch and revert only. billinghurst (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Twinkle

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

While undertaking archiving of Wikisource:Possible copyright violations I needed to do a batch delete. I found that with a little work that with Twinkle that one is able to get the batch deletion component working. I have yet to work out which components do and do not work for WS, however, if someone else has used it well at WP then their feedback would be welcome. billinghurst (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If we are able to do further review, we may be able to set it up as a gadget. billinghurst (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

SmokestackJones

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This series of edits http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventure_of_the_Speckled_Band&action=historysubmit&diff=1729058&oldid=1162706 and the creation of account User:SmokestackJones are highly questionable. I have reverted the edits pending varification. Would someone check the new user account and the claims of the user; "Changed audio credit to my real name"? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an alignment the series of edits, and looking at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=SmokestackJones it would seem that the account is not new and is global (created 2005), just a low edit rate. It would seem feasible at face value. billinghurst (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
More research http://toomuchjohnson.blogspot.com/2009/01/short-bus-to-09.html leads to concur wiht Billinghurst, will restore edit. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate Account

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I don't think we have any special policy about alternate accounts here, but I would like to post {{User Alternate Acct Name}} and {{User Alternate Acc}} as appropriate, but first they would need to be built. See W:User:Jeepday for related. Any thoughts? JeepdaySock (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeepday ... I think that it is an excellent idea of best practice, especially with regard to some of the issues that exist at enWQ where a sysadmin had a multitude of undeclared accounts. An upfront statement of the situation has merit IMNSHO billinghurst (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I transwikied the the templates and posted them, but they still need to be cleaned up for WS, real life is calling. JeepdaySock (talk) 12:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Did most of the cleanup on the templates, please check for mistakes. {{User Alternate Acct Name}}, {{User Alternate Acc}} and {{User Previous Acct}} I also built WS:ALT which redirects here pending further input and creation of policy or best practice page. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Built Draft Wikisource:Alternate accounts, leveraged heavily from w:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, (checked meta wiki but they don't have much posted m:Meta:Suspected sockpuppets) took out bunches that just does not apply here because we are not making anything new or trying to change the world. The short cut WS:ALT still redirect here. Jeepday (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
A notice at the Scriptorium should bring in a wider review than here.--BirgitteSB 00:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Good point, posted at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Alternate_Account Jeepday (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Set the short cut to the main page, any further discussion should be at Wikisource talk:Alternate accounts or Wikisource:Scriptorium#Alternate_Account. Jeepday (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Spammer

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Arturosocial aka User:203.177.74.144 has just spammed several author articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

They spammed a few other wikis; I locked their global account. —Pathoschild 09:24:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Formosa

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had reason to delete contribution of Formosa (talk • contribs) last week and they came back to me today, and the understanding of what was and was not copyright did not seem sufficient. On reviewing their recent contributions many of the works are copyright violations and accordingly I have deleted the definite violations, marked others, and started questioning more. It would seem that we have been letting a number of works slip under our notice and needs a number of us to start the clear out, and maybe to assist in the education. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


User:DANE YOUSSEF

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In Wikipedia this user page would be speedily deleted as being inappropriate for the site. Does the same apply in Wikisource, and what is the procedure? Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 10:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource:Deletion policy, and our speedy wouldn't necessarily address the existing content for that tag. I don't get overly concerned with user pages, and we have had a greater level of tolerance, though that is approaching the boundary. If you think that it oversteps the boundary, then add it to We have WS:PD for standard deletion discussions. billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I was only asking ;-) Thanks for the clarification. Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I would encourage Jan1nad to post it at WS:PD with a good argument for delete. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Wild Wolf

Latest comment: 14 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I was tempted to go for a (very) short term block here, but figured I'd drop it here for calmer, uninvolved, heads to reply. He's been changing author pages from the one letter abbreviations to the two letter abbreviations, Author:John Ellis‎ and Author:Richard Conover Evarts‎, despite the fact it changes a useful, working link to a broken one. He's done this repeatedly on these pages and not responded at all to messages I left on his talk page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. 24 hours for disruptive editing. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
We are blocking an admin for what has been deemed an acceptable process (2 initials) until this point? The easy solution is to create the redirects eg. [#redirect[[Wikisource:Authors-E#Ev]]. I know that it isn't perfect but I am not sure how the block really helps. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) has refused to engage in discussion about this.
  2. The user has instead chosen to engage in a pattern of disruptive editing, reinstating his reverts in what appears to be some sort of unapproved automated editing pattern. [1], [2]

Cirt (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I will gladly unblock, iff Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) promises in the future to engage in discussion, first, instead of choosing to revert as his primary option. Cirt (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is an editing pattern that has been undertaken for >>12 months, and within a blink of the eye, one fellow admin complains, and then you put a block upon it as the Wild Wolf hasn't been communicating. Yet on that admin's page we have a history of no communication.
The facts are
  • that this is an existing style which has been undertaken for an extended period of time, with an implicit acceptance by the community from discussions in Scriptorium, and then the admin's confirmation 2009.
  • that the fix is easy, and doesn't need a revert
  • two admins were undertaking reverts
I am not commenting on either admin's behaviour, or taking a side on which methodology that I prefer, I am reflecting that adding a block in this circumstance seems heavy-handed in light of the circumstance. I don't think that WW has a requirement to make the promise to you to get an unblock. If the edits are not what is the community's wish we should deal with it that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not think it is ideal for Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) to engage in this sort of behavior pattern instead of engaging in discussion and dialogue. If he were to make a statement saying he will do so, then of course there will be no need for a block at that point in time (hopefully), and I will of course be more than happy to unblock. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Update: I have unblocked Wild Wolf (talk • contribs). I will defer further to this Administrator's noticeboard as appropriate. I left a message for Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) requesting that the user engage in dialogue with others on this project in the future, instead of perpetuating a pattern of disruptive editing and reverting. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Hell, neither do I think that it is ideal behaviour, and the alternate revisions by the other admin are similarly the case, and now I see that there is a third with less than ideal behaviour. I do not believe that you should not make such a decision without considering that the task in hand is not in isolation, and actually aligns with what the community has been doing. Prosfilaes has now taken exception to it, acted on that exception, and you have sided with that admin without obvious consideration of the history or the circumstances, nor even undertaking a conversation about the tasks at hand. You have seem to have closed one eye and seem to have forfeited your neutrality. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
You edit-conflicted - I have unblocked Wild Wolf (talk • contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment: There is a big difference between the actions of Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) and Prosfilaes (talk • contribs) here - one has engaged in an attempt at dialogue and has brought the matter here for further input from other admins. The other has not engaged in dialogue or discussion. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Wild_Wolf, though traditionally quite non-communicative, is one of the best editors we have at cleaning up the project. Think of him as the silent janitor nobody knows very well.
  2. The initials thing wasn't invented by him, and while I strongly opposed when another user began making autonomous decisions and undoing others work, I would consider WW to be "following community consensus" by going along with it. Even I tend to go with the two-initial variant now. History says the red links don't stay red for long.
  3. Blocking an admin should not be done except in extreme situations, and this certainly does not qualify. If somebody is so poor an editor as to require a block, surely you can de-admin them first. WW has hardly gone rogue and started screwing up the project.
  4. Again, I find it concerning that measures like blocking other members (admin or not) was leaped to so quickly and would encourage all involved to remember that flaunting admin powers by demanding conditions on any user being allowed to participate just causes hard feelings and rivalries - things we like to avoid on WS so we can all quietly go about the business of improving the project.
Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 04:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
My view of this accords with most of the points above, 1 and 2 are the key points regarding this situation. The action was reversed, I don't think the user is required to discuss anything arising from this. If there is no guideline or consensus on how this meta-content should organised, such as when do we create Category:Authors-Pt', then the user is welcome to contribute to the discussion. I think it would be understandable and perfectly acceptable if they had no wish to, following this unwelcome noise. Cygnis insignis (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) is not required to communicate by any means, but neither is it appropriate (admin or not) for him to revert other users' edits without discussion. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have heard input and taken some good advice from both Billinghurst (talk • contribs) [3] and from BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) [4]. They have both politely taken the time to make some very good points in comments to me, and for that I am quite thankful. I agree that I should have warned Wild Wolf (talk • contribs) instead of blocked. I sincerely apologize for that, and as I agree with the advice to me by BirgitteSB, I will definitely take that to heart in the future. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    I don't see any need to apologise to the community for the blip, as you were acting with the same good faith as the rest of us, and this was a lapse. The most important thing is that we can share a lesson learnt, especially where there were no dire consequences, and move forward without the need for blame. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Billinghurst, I thank you for that. I continue to learn from the wise advice received. :) Cirt (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Best practice

An editor (admin or not) who has good faith contributions, but does not respond when concerns raised about on their talk page creates a problem. However we need to be sure not to compound the existing problem of poor communication with an administrative response that also poorly communicated. Rather than dwelling on the problems in this recent administrative action, which Cirt has already acknowledged, I would like to direct people to an example of good practice to be sure that we all agree on the fundamentals.

  • Logoboy95 (talk • contribs) was adding material that did not fit our inclusion policy. I first explained to problem to him Logos He continued editing without acknowledging my message, so asked him specifically to respond before continuing with further edits Please Respomd He again edited without leaving a response, so I left a clear warning that I would block if he continued. Warning you will be blocked He continued and I blocked him for 1 day and notified him After his block expired he resumed editing as before and ThomasV blocked him for 1 month and notified him After his block expired he resumed editing as before and I blocked him for 1 year without notifying him. He has not returned.

How would anyone recommend changing the example of Logoboy95 to make a generic example of best practice for an editor who not responding to talk page inquiries? Personally I now think the second or third block should have been "indefinite". But that example is from 2006 and I believe we were all so focused on making sure en.WS did not become like en.WP that I probably overcompensated too much back then.--BirgitteSB 01:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, BirgitteSB, that case study is a very good example. Cirt (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice example Birgitte. I like to think of our role is gently remind users that singularly applying individual aspects over community practice or expectations is their crawling towards impending doom. Obviously some do wish to get their quicker. For most with a dubious editing history or at least not committed to the project, one year will be like indefinite.
Personally I like the order of magnitude block escalation that was applied, and think that you only get to indefinite quicker if there is a clear breach of good faith, or for the workload created for the community. Further I like that we seem to have an agreed principle to our approach, and haven't had to overly codify this approach. Though do see that we could explain our approach for newbies. From our perspective of experienced users and administrators, what I see is necessary, is that we give clear and concise statements of why, either in edits summaries, or more complex/problematic cases, then here for the archives. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the multiple warnings followed by the magnitude block escalation as given in the above example is a good model. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Block please

Vandal User:207.197.92.30 Done

Boundary-testing IP vandal

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have blocked 67.237.170.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) for two hours following s sequence of one-word changes and an ignored warning. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Returned and vandalism on the same pattern, so I have blocked for a week. Where do we stand with long blocks of single IP numbers? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a dynamic IP from embarqhsd.net, so it may be fairly easy for them to get another IP, so my choice would be to incrementally increase it if they return. To note: I undertook an IP check user, and this person did check create an account first up, though not blocked at this point. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Julius Caesar vandalism response

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

158.123.145.5 (talk • contribs) Repeat vandal here, here, reverts Yann after being warned by him, introduces widely-reported spurious verses to Julius Caesar. Blocked for one year. User:Neskaya also did a partial revert of one word of User:158.123.145.5's addition within hours, vouching for the rest of the spurious verses, as well as a different revert of the same user, truly or falsely fostering the impression he was fighting vandalism. He also did some bizarre editing of one of Billinghurst's confirmation votes. I am not blocking him, but if he's sockpuppetting, the IP block will close up at least one of his avenues of abuse. A third IP address, 68.227.189.37 (talk • contribs) also indirectly vouched for the authenticity of the verses, by a record of correcting minor mistakes earlier, and reverting Neskaya's partial revert of one word. He was warned by Yann, who believed Neskaya, being a registered user, was fighting vandalism. I will not block this IP address, but warn him that his suspicious behavior will cause preventative blocks to escalate more quickly than usual. ResScholar (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what is the current issue. These edits are 11 months old. Is there something more recent of which we need to be aware? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
These spurious verses were only just discovered by me in this new location, and had been widely-publicized in the media. And the provenance of this work was only recently described by Wikisource as an unsourced text. The incident is serious enough to do damage to the reputation of Wikisource. I think everyone should be aware of the incident and who may have been involved. ResScholar (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to unblock

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An individual created an account under the name of User:Vickie Guerrero and promptly went on a vandalism rampage. The rampage wasn't too severe, as User:Moondyne and I caught it early, but I don't expect many contributions from this person either. In case I'm wrong, this is a reminder to change the settings of the block in a month, so they can create an account and act in a way that doesn't impersonate a living person if they want to prove me wrong. ResScholar (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Did a CU, nothing striking to see. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Feed the Troll

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Vandal with what appears to be a similar M.O. to User:I have a half-bred son et al. Prosody (talk) 05:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually am not whateevr that user is. I am acting on my own. My name is Feed the Troll and nothing else! Btw, feed the troll some jellybeans! Also I love porn. Feed the Troll (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Whichever behaviour you are exhibiting, blanking pages is unacceptable and you are cordially invited to take a hike and not darken our door. CU'd and results shared. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Administrator performing out of process deletions!!!

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

That got your attention, didn't it?

A large number of odd, redundant and orphan categories have recently been created as part of the Popular Science Monthly project. For example, Category:Historical perspective is empty and in Category:Eurocentric world view, which is otherwise empty and in no category. That is one tiny snippet of a problem spanning scores, perhaps hundreds, of categories. It seems the user is thinking of the category system as a tag cloud rather than as a tree-like structure, and has therefore been making categories out of highly specific keywords, including many that are redundant to categories that already exist.

Unless I hear strident objections, I am going to go rouge and perform whatever out-of-process deletions are necessary to clean up this massive mess. I promise to be gentle, and to salvage as much as I can. But I'm not interested in spending the next six months bogged down in process at WS:PD.

Speak now or forever hold your peace.

Hesperian 05:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to a question I have laid out my proposed handling of nine categories; see User talk:Hesperian#Hesperian can you come on IRC please?. Hesperian 06:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
gopherit! (spare patience being bottled (with the apron)) billinghurst sDrewth 08:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
No worries by me, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Float-center → Float center

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Rename the template for consistency; {{float left}}, {{float right}}. Placing a speedy deletion tag broke too many pages so a request at the administrators' noticeboard seemed more suitable. Blurpeace 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To assist those arriving at this, {{Float center}} already exists as a redirect. We are pretty protective of our templates, with good cause. I'm assuming that you now realise that asking is a better method than tagging with speedy delete. Is this currently interfering with your ability to contribute? Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothing interfering in particular. If consistency isn't enough to warrant a rename, that's understandable. Blurpeace 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be annoying if what I typed didn't work, but it does so I focus on something more interesting. Consistency may be important, changing all the templates to one form or the other requires the bike-shed committee to convene. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 23:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename board

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

Shouldn't the "administrator's noticeboard" be the "administrators' noticeboard"? Like most Wikimedians, I'm a grammar wonk. At the risk of breaking something (archive scripts, etc.), I'll leave someone else to complete the move. Blurpeace 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting it. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
*grumblegrumblepunctuationisnotgrammargrumblegrumble* Angr 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Touché? :) Blurpeace 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
But "Administrator's noticeboard" tells us that it's associated with the position of administrator, not with the individuals who happen to be administrators at any given time. I say keep it as is =). —Spangineerwp (háblame) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a solid argument for "Administrator", but "Administrator's", as singular possessive, is surely wrong. Hesperian 04:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It seems that CMS disagrees with me, so I'll stand corrected. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 05:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Either way sounds good to me. :) Cirt (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Done— billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Consideration to introducing Rollback privileges

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Purpose. I am looking to propose that enWikisource looks to implement the rollback facility; though before taking this to the community, I was wishing to see what level of support there is among administrators as we would be undertaking the allocation of responsibility.

Background. I think that it is now opportune for enWS to consider the introduction of the rollbacker. While we have not set the highest hurdle for adminship (with good results), with our higher traffic, we now have people who participate in recent change checking, yet not necessarily involved in the wider aspects of the site. I believe that it would therefore be beneficial to have rollbacker. It would also allow the allocation of a corresponding bit to m:global rollbackers as we seek fit, while not necessary, it would elements of usefulness, and still allow us to maintain a control. (This latter part would be separated in my proposal)

Comment. Wikisource has had the AUTOPATROLLED capability in place for an extended period of time, and from point of view it has been working admirably well. That is we set a basic principle of what we were looking for in persons given the autopatrolled bit, and we allowed administrators to allocate that bit based on their assessment of the knowledge, experience and attitude of the candidate, and whether they knew that they were a candidate for the bit or not.

Action. To implement this it therefore requires the support and involvement of administrators to allocate the bit, hence I am here seeking your opinions on this suggestion, and if considered suitable, your in-principle support to take it to community. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea JeepdaySock (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm neutral... I don't have a problem with it, but I don't see the need—I don't have numbers, but it seems to me that our vandalism to admin ratio is extremely low. Personally I doubt I'd give these privileges to anyone, but on the other hand the chance of abuse is low. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm similarly against the idea, we're very liberal with Admin privileges which helps foster community, prevent cabals and hierarchies, etc. Introducing a medium-grade rank could undo that, and because of our unique raison d'etre, vandalism is a very small problem...as is admin abuse. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    Response We have had a number of contributors who have not wished to be administrators, yet they patrol, and they are happy to do that. I was looking to encourage that capacity and to improve their tools. With regard to nominating administrators, having nominated three last year, I am truly aware of the process and how we encourage our excellent editors. I am not looking to create any medium rank at all, looking to improve the tools for those who don't want to step further (at this point in time).— billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that this is a great idea as proposed by Billinghurst (talk • contribs). Like en.wikipedia, should be relatively simple matter to add/remove rollback as appropriate. Therefore, if only used for obvious issues such as vandalism help, should be no big deal. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I support the idea as long as it doesn't fall into the wrong hands such a vandal. How hard would it be to implement? Would new code need to be written or is it just something we need to turn on? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that it is a Bugzilla request for configuration change in the setup files to flick the switch. With regard to bad guys, yep.— billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it goes without saying, but I think we should encourage admins to not give rollback privileges until the recipient has had autopatrol for at least a few weeks. Also it would be preferable if the two bits were given by different admins, especially when the time between giving them is low. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Spangineer, JeepdaySock (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I had been leaving this aspect of the discussion until we took it to the community. I had wanted to float the idea generally and get admin's perspective, to judge whether it had a snowflake's chance first. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Closing discussion here. Seems to be a level of interest to take to community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10
58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wild Wolf

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

hasn't edited here since s/he was blocked, 20 days ago. Though s/he often goes periods without editing, 20 days is an unusually long absence. Does anyone know them well enough to drop them a line, clear the air, and invite them back? Hesperian 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Never heard them say 'boo' on their talk page or elsewhere during confirmations, so not me, and best of luck to whomever. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could somebody please remove this protocol from the spam list? I would like to be able to use http ://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/mills_jon.htm in a citation but the spambot won't let me. Thanx in advance. B9hummingbirdhoverin'chittychat 14:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Crosswiki vandal

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Mortimer Freen, please block. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC) (admin, en.wiki)

Done and CU'd. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Temporary block on User:Formosa

Latest comment: 14 years ago52 comments18 people in discussion

Formosa (talk • contribs) started what I consider a series of clumsy and excessive application of the use of the template {{copyvio}}. I will admit to a history to his attitude which I consider approaching piousness, however, the approach taken is what I considered contrary to our accepted convention to handling possible copyright violations. Anyway, to give a few days grace to how to handle copyvio & {{PD-EdictGov}} in a more delicate means, I have blocked his edits for a few days, while leaving talk page open. I will now back off. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Having seen many deleted edits of this user, I support the temporary block. Hopefully this will teach an important lesson.--Jusjih (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it was a case of WP:DISRUPT taken too far, he was upset that some of his works were deleted, so he wanted to prove a point by getting as much stuff deleted as possible. I definitely see the potential for a positive contributor in him, so wouldn't support a ban any longer than a few days - but hopefully this just gives time to "calm down and re-evaluate" why we join and remain in online communities, and we can all forget this and move forward in the future. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 23:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Global ban enforcement

The following discussion is closed:

Administration done and undone. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please enforce the global ban on Thekohser declared by Jimbo Wales in this edit. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I would decline to ban the account, and caution other admins to keep in mind that the nature of WMF is not a pet of Jimbo Wales, despite the respect I have for him. The purpose of de-centralised power is so that one person saying "so far as I am concerned..." does not mean all admins everywhere suddenly comply. As User:Thekohser has only good-faith edits on Wikisource, our community does not see a necessity to ban him. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 02:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely we don't block people for having "very few contributions" now, do we? On what grounds have you blocked him? I will not enter a block/unblock war, but unless consensus among administrators is that we should ban people on Wikisource for their conduct elsewhere (also note that he appears to have not been blocked on Wikiversity, thus angering Jimbo Wales into saying that "as far as he was concerned" he wished that the user was globally blocked.) I am not in the habit of allowing a single user, no matter his role in WMF, to dictate which users are or are not allowed to contribute to an open project. Tehkohser is not a bad-faith vandal, he is a user who got on the wrong side of issues - not unlike JimboWales himself, or Essjay, or many others. He has done nothing to merit a Wikisource block. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 04:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
We utterly do not ban people purely for being inactive or having made no edits. I hope this is simply a misunderstanding of Cygnis's comment. Jude (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Global_ban_enforcement is a stronger thread than the original I was working with.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that a global ban can be imposed by those with global powers to do so, and it shouldn't be up to individual wikis to get around such matters. If we are to be petitioned in that regard, it wouldn't be by general users it would be those who have the positions of authority. My personal opinion is that a good faith editor will be treated in good faith, and a bad faith editor will be stopped. It isn't the name that matters, it is the edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Sherurcij that TheKohser "has done nothing to merit a Wikisource block". He seems to deliberately act to annoy across projects, and might deserve a punitive block. But Jimbo is the subject of a Request for Comment in a case relevant to this subject V:Wikiversity:Community_Review/Wikimedia_Ethics:Ethical_Breaching_Experiments/Summary filed by a Wikiversity user. It seems inappropriate to me for Jeff G. to go circumvent administrative processes to ask us to silence TheKohser, someone whose conduct will be evaluated in the case, especially when he doesn't alert us to the existence of such a case, or the charges against TheKohser ("cross-wiki issues" is not a charge). If Jeff G. or Jimbo wants to go out on a limb with this prejudicial behavior it's their prerogative as Jimbo has defined founder rights. But they shouldn't omit pertinent facts to avoid taking credit for doing it. ResScholar (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that case. The fact of the matter is that Jimbo still has the founder bit and Sue Gardner, WMF Executive Director, still supports him in that case.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has Founder access and can initiate a global ban, or request that the stewards do so. This entire discussion is moot: either there is a global ban, in which case, software and server-side facilities will be used to implement it, with no input from us required; or there isn't, in which case, as User:Thekosher isn't an active participant of Wikisource, nor do they appear to have done anything against our community rules, I still see no requirement of input from us. Steward-instituted global bans exist for exactly this reason. Jude (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Presumably the block on Thekohser has been lifted at Wikisource, pending some official action? Wikisource has a history of welcoming users who have been banned or punished at other places, provided their behavior here is appropriate. As I recall from User:Poetlister debate even taking admin powers based on actions at other wikis was a huge debate. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
That is incorrect; the block is still in place. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree; until he has earned a block here, or such has been placed on him from above here, we shouldn't block him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have unblocked him as consensus seems to indicate that we have no opinion/bearing on a global block, but a local block is not called for in this situation. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 18:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Note : he has been locked : [5]. I suppose that will put this discussion to an end. Darkoneko (talk)

The SUL account status utility shows that his accounts on Commons, here on enwikisource, and usability are unattached and unblocked, so the lock may not apply to them.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, that same utility shows that only his account here on enwikisource is still unattached and unblocked, and his unattached accounts on Commons and usability have recently been blocked locally (apparently confirming my suspicion that global locks do not affect unattached accounts), so I respectfully request that you reconsider.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A pertinent link which has been cited elsewhere, the thread later mentions this site. Cygnis insignis (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have imposed the block due to global block (linked above), and that it is a unattached account at this site. In this issue the global perspective is stronger than any local issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a fair amount of experience of dealing directly with this user, and I'd be happy to share it. I would suspend "assume good faith" in this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree emphatically with Charles Matthews. Thekohser is such a master of words and images, he is an utter danger to all that Wikisource stands for. His every move is a puzzle, within a cryptogram, within an acrostic. Indeed, he could strike anywhere, so we must be ever vigilant against his threat. -- Reshokeht (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Strong rhetoric about being "an utter danger to all that Wikisource stands for", from a user who just joined WS today...could we stop the personal attacks? Either he has made bad-faith edits on Wikisource, or he hasn't. In this case he has a history of good-faith edits on our project. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 14:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I clearly missed the acrostic reference, you scampy imp. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 14:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Why thank you, Sherurcij. Look, you made a good college try here to stand up for principles of content over politics, but as with all things Wikimedia, the royal decree always trumps intelligence and quality. It's not like Thekohser hasn't been banned from other projects where he was contributing outstanding work. He's just too ethical for Wikimedia, that's the fact, so let's just deal with that fact and continue on thinking our mediocre projects are somehow saving the planet. -- Reshokeht (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked, user request. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, billinghurst!   — Jeff G. ツ 04:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Jeff G. Don't thank me as I didn't do it for you, I did it on the evidence; interestingly your approach as an ardent advocate hasn't particularly thrilled me. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WTF. This is an outrageous political block which is against the interests of this project. Even if he is a right scoundrel elsewhere, Wikisource is a project to work on published PD sources, and he has done nothing to disrupt this project, nor used this project to disrupt other project. In fact he has recently contributed appropriately to Wikisource, correcting text on a project that I set up because I thought it would interest him. There is no reason to assume he would misuse Wikisource. We did not block Poetlister. Moulton was blocked after he used Wikisource in his efforts to continue editing Wikiversity; that block was a frustrated decision, only done after I had discussed the issue with him on IRC and he showed no interest in developing Wikisource content and intended to continue using any mechanism available to continue working around his ban on Wikiversity. There is one other person who is blocked here due to behaviour on other projects (I am intentionally not mentioning their name/username), however their edits here were part of the same pattern. The only other cross-wiki block I can think of is primetime (talk • contribs), where I referenced the history on en.WP, and blocked email as a consequence of diff. I doubt there are any other people in our block log who have not disrupted or misused this project. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Blocking should always be used as a preventative action, but the purpose of the block here appears to be punishment rather than preventing disruption to the wiki. We welcome editors here so long as they do not disrupt Wikisource or use Wikisource as a platform to disrupt other wikis, neither of which has occurred nor is likely to occur. I suspect such campaigns of total exclusion can only alienate users whose conflicts were otherwise irrelevant here. —Pathoschild 04:05:09, 05 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John, having seen firsthand that different projects bring out different behaviours. However, I think this action should be seen not as a local decision to block Thekohser from Wikisource, but as a local decision to honour a global block that only didn't happen here for technical reasons. It follows that if you want Thekohser to be allowed to edit Wikisource, you should go over to meta and seek to have the global block lifted. Hesperian 04:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I just want to get this straight. I am currently "welcome" to edit Wikisource, as long as there is no disruptive or politically-agitated "tone" or what-not in my actions? I have a feeling that if I make a few productive edits here, the response will be that someone (oh, I don't want to name names, but you could probably guess) will go notify Jimbo, and then Jimbo will come here and try to re-exert his authority over Wikisource, similar to how he crushed the will of Wikiversity to resist his authority. I know this itself is a rather political statement (though I think I am speaking to truth). I guess I'll just proceed editing productively, and we'll see how this pans out. I will say this -- thank you to those who have showed the fortitude to protect the principals of your community standards, regardless of political backlash. I do appreciate that. -- Thekohser (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Basically, yes. Hopefully now our little project will get back to its normal peace and quiet. :) Jude (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
We support people who edit in good faith and in line with the principle of a cooperative effort to produce an online library of free content. We actually all make quite an effort to get along with each other; and to be supportive of each other and their projects, and that, we hope, is our point of difference. We provide help, with the hope that users will share it. We aim to be a haven where people can help reproduce quality works. <plug class=blatant>Wikisource:Proofread of the Month is always a good place to start and learn out quirkiness.</plug> — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Local consensus ignored by local admins

This is a pattern common to the efforts to block User:Thekohser and certain other accounts of editors who have been critical of Wikipedia and of the parent WikiMediaFoundation. A local account of this editor on a WMF wiki is non-disruptive, but others come who are not active in the local project and demand action to block. There was no consensus to block here. The "user request" referred to by Cyngis insignis was a sarcastic note on the User talk:Reshokeht page saying "Place the block notice here." That wasn't a request and it is generally policy not to block a user on request anyway. (I am not an active Wikisource editor and have no intention of interfering here, I am concerned with possible negative effect on the overall WMF family of wikis.) The disruption here, yesterday and today, was entirely the result of an editor coming here with an outside issue. Jimbo recently personally blocked Thekohser on WikiVersity, together with other actions appearing to intend to suppress criticism of the WMF (the reality is more complex, there are issues of "outing" editors or criticizing an editor on one wiki from the haven of another), causing a huge disruption there that seems to have seriously damaged the project, as there were threats that Wikiversity would be shut down if the community there did not cooperate, and there was an attempt made to actually close it down by petition at meta. (Failed overwhelmingly. But it started many editors running scared, and may have resulted in less participation at Wikiversity by experienced editors.)

Jimbo and Stewards have, absent specific instruction to the contrary from the WMF Board, the authority to go to any project and use any tool, but they do not have the authority to command the community to do or agree to anything, and the overall and fundamental policy of neutrality requires that the community, the ultimate and active "judge" of content, be independent from coercion.

I am not recommending confronting Jimbo, who is doing, I'm sure, what he believes is to the benefit of the projects. But he makes mistakes, and the only force that can prevent them from doing deep damage is the community. Enforcement of global blocks by going to individual wikis and blocking can be done by any steward, including Jimbo, but the issue should always be if the block attempt itself is more likely to be disruptive, or to do greater harm, than leaving the account unblocked.

Most wikis seem to be reluctant to enforce global bans themselves. Given that editors who are unjustly blocked can become active enemies of a site that blocks them, sometimes this creates a continual need for block evasion detection, more and more waste of time. If a block is implemented by a steward, this creates no enmity between a blocked editor and the wiki, and, after all, the editor did not harm the wiki, and providing "sanctuaries" for blocked and banned editors allows them to gain experience in cooperation, sometimes, and I've then seen them be able to return to where they were banned, by consent. The Kohser was (mildly) disruptive here by, today, creating Reshokeht as a blatant sock, perhaps to evade the block, but this editor, from long experience, expects to be treated harshly and unfairly.

I recommend that the community address one immediate and two larger problems here: The immediate problem is whether or not Thekohser should be locally blocked. The larger problems are administrators willing to block based on what is really an outside request based on no misbehavior here, and without a consensus to block, indeed there was an emerging consensus against blocking, and the formation of a community policy regarding bans for activity on other wikis, as well as addressing the problem of editors who bring conflicts from other wikis here, which is what happened yesterday. Jimbo and the stewards can, if they choose, trump community decisions here, because this community is volunteering at a WMF site, but the community has the right and responsibility to, at least, make its own decisions, and it can and should regulate the behavior of its own members. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Um... "others come who are not active in the local project and demand action"? Hesperian 04:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That's what happened above. I'm not demanding action at all. I'm just a neighbor, so to speak, commenting. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I do hear what you say and as the blocking administrator I will reflect on it this way
  • There are stewards who have an authority granted by the broad WMF community. They utilised that to block someone and that would have had an effect here if that user had aligned their accounts, so the choice becomes should the user be granted exceptional rights for enWS or should the wish of the larger WMF community be taken. I saw no exceptional circumstances for an editor who has no recent or significant contribution history at enWS.
  • If the community block was removed, I would support its removal locally too.
  • We do make our own decisions, and do cooperatively reflect a positive manner at enWS; though I would say that I have the expectation that a person regulates their own behaviour, and if they do not then there is a binary switch at this end.
  • I don't know whether the account Reshokeht is, or is not, Thekohser, that is not a presumption that I will make. However, if your statement is true, then I think that would demonstrate that it was the right decision as if they wanted to edit here in good faith they could have done so, this account has gone straight into a political aspect, which is not the purpose of this site. If they edit here appropriately under another account name, undertake good edits, and do not participate in argy-bargy, then we would probably be none the wiser.
  • This site has a history of welcoming and encouraging users, including those who have problems at another wiki, to undertake work to add source data in line with our aims, and long may that continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Billinghurst, I see above that you unblocked, but the substance here isn't addressed by that. I'd disagree with your analysis (leaving a wiki account alone, in the absence of misbehavior impacting a wiki, is not an "exceptional right," it is the norm and is generally expected), your action in blocking reversed an unblock by another admin who was, in fact, implementing consensus. Was this appropriate? Was there some emergency that required swift action?
  • As to Reshokeht, what was the offense of this account, if you are not willing to assume that Thekohser spelled backwards is adequate as the quacking of a duck?
  • Just some questions raised by this incident. No obligation to answer. For now, it appears this is over. --Abd (talk) 21:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't a discussion forum, and you have yet to contribute to the mission of this project.
    Please become familiar with our people, purpose and practises before imposing on this noticeboard again. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Most of the discussion above relates to us pointing out that the user in question had done nothing against the rules of the Wikisource community, and that if they were to be blocked globally, then the global block should be used, instead of lackeys being sent forth to every community to tell them to block people. I'm not really sure what your issue is here? Jude (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Taking no position about this user, I think that each project should have the final say on whether to block or unblock users according to its own community consensus (apart from WMF office actions). This is desired to allow those projects with the most productive cultures to thrive and serve as examples to others. Global blocks should never serve as anything but the default for projects that wish to follow them. Is there a policy that addresses such issues? If not, someone should write one. Question: where does policy about global blocks belong, as they affect all projects in all languages? Wnt (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The issue of global blocks and locks is one that is managed at Meta and they are undertaken there. You should address your concerns about such matters to that forum for the stewards and others. If you think that there should be exemptions from global locks, then it would be a worthwhile conversation at that site, it is not specifically relevant at this site at this board at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrections needed to protected page

The following discussion is closed:

no action at this time, move discussion to talk page of work

Can an admin please correct Arithmetic on the Frontier. In verse 2, "villanous" should be "villainous"; some of the sources referenced omit the i but it must be a typing error. In the same verse, the source I'd consider the most reliable [6] has "after?" not "after", and grammatically there should be a ?. Finally, it should be Category:Early modern poetry, not Category:Poems. Thanks.--Longfellow (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In this regard we would be better off getting a reliable (original?) source and basing it on that, rather than trying to match an agglomeration of sites. That way we have an authoritative basis for what we have rather than what we think best. This is very much why we now prefer the use of scanned images against which to proofread.— billinghurst sDrewth 01:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
villainous villanous villanous all 1890s, though I didn't try to work out whether they were US published or UK published, which is often the cause of spelling variations. In short the version we have is not wrong, it may just be incorrect for some. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/2010&oldid=14538241"