Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2011

Checkuser notification

action by a steward

I did a CU here. local CU please contact me for details. Matanya (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

User	diff/time	page	comment
Matanya	15:23, 11 July 2011	talk:Zhaladshar	"urget request. : please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:26, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	"urgent request. : please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:35, " "	talk:Theornamentalist	"urgent request. : please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:36, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	"urgent request. : as a steward, I need an admin ASAP. [insert] please contact me privately."
Matanya	15:38, " "	talk:Zhaladshar	":Thanks for reply, sending full details in few seconds."
Tarmstro99	15:38, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	":I'm not a steward, sorry.
Matanya	15:45, " "	talk:Tarmstro99	"::I am, but user Zhaladshar had contacted me. thanks anyway."
Matanya	15:49, " "	Administrators' noticeboard [above]	"I did a CU here. local CU please contact me for details."
Theornamentalist	16:12 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	"Hey Matanya, I got your message, I can help. If it is a pricate matter send it to my email.
Theornamentalist	16:30 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	[Minor edit. Spelling: private]
Meta: Matanya	16:33 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	:"Thanks, I have sent to details to user:Zhaladshar but it seems he didn't do much about it. if you can please make it happen, I'll appreciate it. best"
Theornamentalist	16:54 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	"::did you send anything to me? I am unsure what you are asking for"
Meta: Matanya	17:02 " "	Meta: talk:Matanya	":::"I FW it to you."
Theornamentalist	Block 17:14 11 July 2011	Powerloan	"Abusing multiple accounts: long term cross-wiki abuser"

From talk:Theornamentalist

as a steward, I need an admin ASAP. please contact me privately. Matanya (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Please document what happened here. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure; I did not do this initially for potential privacy concerns, but it was in regard to a someone using sock puppets and vandalizing. Powerloan (talk • contribs) was one of them. Others were listed, but the accounts do not exist here, so I've only blocked that one. The others, Breakearth, Dramamost, Rocksaid, Daysdays, Wheelwatch and Kittiesonfire, I will log into the Admin board soon - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

When do you intend to do that? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done; I have been busy this week Cygnis. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Compiled by CYGNIS INSIGNIS 01:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was unaware that this was what was needed; thank you. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

To note that I dealt with CU issues in my mailbox around this when I returned a day ago; it was contained then, and was completed by me yesterday. I can confirm that Matanya did indeed undertake local CU checks on the vandal (I'm done.. I wanna quit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)) and the underlying IP address, it supported other wiki investigation for a known crosswiki vandal, usually exhibited here on edits to Talk:Main Page. I am not sure where the other CUs are currently on this matter. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Log

Users	Results
Tohigos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL), Boainb, Thogasin, Newgothic	all recent and from same source as Io18jL & Wuy4h Not unique to enWS, further details reported outwards, and block on underlying point of access — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The The Thing... vandals	Got an IP to target a global block.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Shirnie12 and 12evanrey12	Getting IP for targeted block. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
140.126.248.231 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)+ others	so blocked 140.126.248.0/24. Admins can also block on IP, and /24 blocks the last 255 IP numbers. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) incident, a changing ip.
Otavatotalho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) & Morphymor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Appearing as a troll on the user pages of Ottava Rima (talk • contribs), and it seems to be an issue from a sister wiki. Blocked and checked for sockpuppets. Forwarded results to CUs. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC). Back again as User:Morphymor blocked the IP address for an extended period of time — billinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
219.89.0.0/16	vandal on another project. One user in good standing turned up in the results, and there were no other results. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Easystreet101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	spamming, reported to and blocked by stewards — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Verlyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	spamming, checked and reported to stewards. Global block on link — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Arrogant Teenager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	vandalism and broad. Identifying source against previous and similar. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC). Returned and dealt with by Hesperian, did slops work on the IP address and asked Stewards to flush. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Gunner Pocketer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Blocked by George Orwell III. Vandalism identified as same as Dune Harrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL). CUs notified. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikieditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Blocked by Jack Merridew, and looking for other damage. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Zimmbotkiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) and J35u52012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	confirming that they are aligned with the person undoing the test and vandalism labels from the 69.178.192.0/22 range. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Mascarasnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked after undertaking actions at Wikisource:Administrators in an RfA. Specific comment hidden as inflammatory and not relevant to process. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Mlbgamer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Blanked Talk:Main page, Kathleen whacked them, and I just checked what sort of vandal it may have been. Nothing specifically evident, using dynamic IP from large American provider, so may be back. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
SourceEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) & HubaHubaHotChick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Back as SourceEnthusiast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Back as SourcEdito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) In sOURCE eDITOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Huba editors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) & Sourceo Ind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Looks to be a repeat of the Butthead vandal from 2009 (& 2010), though at a different IP range. If it happens again please note such and we can hardblock the IP range for a period of time. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Dealt with by Spangineer, and I have just blocked on the /20. To continue to be watched, may need to be widened. Fellow admins please note the period of the block, and reapply that as necessary, rather than just any account names. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Dealt with by Kathleen.wright5. Started a new range block, they are editing from a large Indian domain range. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Dealt with by George Orwell III (below). Same ISP range, added wider range block. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Dealt with by JamAKiska; extends the previous ISP range. and dealt with by me; within earlier range, extending length of all blocks. Serial pest, probably requires, more robust measures. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC) I have contacted ISP to request further contact details for reporting abuse. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hegurka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	spamming urls, checked and blocked. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
140.211.35.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	I've blocked this IP for two weeks for vandalism. I would have let the warning suffice had I not noticed that the IP had also been blocked on en:wp for vandalism there, too; A school block. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
222.127.160.0/21	Crosswiki spam as discussed on checkuser-l. Eleccigar1203 in range, local spam page already deleted and account locked. No other local activity. —Pathoschild 22:53:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Sdaufoiagewqhseudh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Sdaufoiagewqhseudhd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Dealt with by KathleenWright5 #Vandalism spree. Drivel on pages harvested via RC. West coast USA. Details noted. Billinghurst (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Returned today from the same spot, dealt with by Cygnis insignis. I have hard-blocked the IP, so if they come back soon it means that it is a dynamic IP address, and we can reblock and re-evaluate. Billinghurst (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Gedgey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	edits have been reverted. Billinghurst (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Dantherocker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)/ Oops I Pooped My Pants / XXxBeAuTiFuLnIGhTmArExXx /Asgfjagshdfgahsdgfahsgdfaaskj / Ballsmahoney365 / -emo rocker for life-	All the same person, will start cleaning up after finished documenting, and having a look at how problematic elsewhere.
Shnwilson25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	links to movie P4V site, now blacklisted. Blocked by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
HEllison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked, cleaned up and checked — billinghurst sDrewth 16:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Realafrica14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked, cleaned, reported to stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Iamroberts‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked by GOIII, from Filipino ISP, notified stewards of account and of the url. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Mm1827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked by GOIII, Chinese language browser, Chinese IP address. Bored Chinese teenager? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Creditcard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Spam. Deleted pages, and stewards managing url. Looking at the history, seems like a range with a spamhaus sitting in behind. I have put an extended hard range block on a small IP range. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Contourbeltabcontour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	Spamming url, one of our more recent Philippine-based spamming organisations. Placed a small hard-IP block for a couple of months. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Casino232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) + Auto02 + Scales12 + Mortgagecomparison	All spam from the same IP address over week plus. Blocking IP. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Nsxtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	blocked by GOIII for url spam, from .pk domain, nothing else on the /24. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Powerloan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) + Breakearth + Dramamost + Rocksaid + Daysdays + Wheelwatch + I'm done.. I wanna quit + Kittiesonfire!	Cross-wiki vandal, per request from Matanya (talk • contribs). - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Agentsan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)	spam here and at enWP. Cleaned by Beeswaxcandle. Checked and blocked by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Linser5, Hcgdrops21, Crimesceneinvestigator, Seoservices, Solarpanels123 and Zing25 are now blocked.	All spam from Japan Fujinomiya Lilo Online Marketing (122.3.171.14) which has been hardblocked for a year. Notified WMF Checksers. Checked and cleaned. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats

Username change request

Could I have -Zeus- renamed to Zeus? I'm trying to go SUL at enwiki -Zeus- (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Unifying Global accounts

Hi, I'm trying to unify my global accounts, however I'm having trouble with the Wikisource one, which is the only outstanding one to tie in. I assume this is because I typed in my password incorrectly when I first set it up. I have gone down the route of trying to get a new password sent, however my e-mail address will have also changed since then. My EN WP & Others, username is Richard Harvey. 82.30.72.39 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Richard%20Harvey

I'm still hoping to have some help on this issue! Anyone, Please! Richard Harvey 82.30.72.39 13:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Richard. You can ask one of our local bureaucrats, BirgitteSB or Zhaladshar, to rename your account on this wiki. This will detach it from your global account, so that your global account will automatically reunify on this wiki. You will lose your local edits, but you only have one to your user page. —Pathoschild 20:45:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation request

I'd like to usurp a zero-edit account User:Sergei for SUL purposes.--Sergei2 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SUL request

Hello, Sonia here. (Confirmation that this is my alt can be found here.) Could I please usurp the local User:Sonia to help unify my account? Much thanks, Openstrings (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rambo → Rambo (usurped)

• Is it possible to move User:Rambo – which has no contributions – to User:Rambo (usurped). This would free up the Rambo account for SUL reasons that I obtain as alt account on en.wiki, meta, commons etc. (more details). Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request name change

I am being harassed and need to change my name here. Could I change it to User:Waterview? Thanks, Another editor (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Cancel the above request, please. I wish to have my name changed from Another editor to User:Mattisse, my global unified name. Thank you. Another editor (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I've renamed you to Mattisse, per your request.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Y'hoshia → Sije

Can someone please change my username to Sije?

• Reason: m:SUL.

Thanks, --Y'hoshia (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw this. I've now renamed your account.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Sije (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

User:JackBot, getting it botified

From my view of the work of JackBot, I am comfortable that the tasks that it is undertaking are up to the mark, and I would be comfortable for it to be given bot rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• JackBot now has its flag.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User rename requested

I want to have my user name changed from "Snake311" to "A7x". This is to maintain consistency with my other user accounts. —§ stay (sic)! 10:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Usurpation request

I'd like to usurp account User:Sergei with zero edits for SUL purposes. My home account is ru:w:User:Sergei.--Sergei2 (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

usurp User:Joy

Hi there. I noticed you added this page to meta:Index of pages where renaming can be requested, thank you for doing that! Hopefully I used the right section for this request - please link this section from the index if so.

I'm trying to get a unified account - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joy/SUL - and there's an old, unused account on this wiki that is called the same way. Can you please move it away?

Last time when I asked about this, User:John Vandenberg confirmed the en.wikisource Joy account is mine or something of the sort, so this looks like a no-brainer now.

It also looks to me now that this wiki had imported one of my old en: edits (it's a stub sorting item, and I did a lot of that on en: back in the day). That is another reason why I should be in control of this account here - that way there is no misattribution.

Thanks in advance. --Joy-temporary (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done--BirgitteSB 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

phe-bot

Please flag User:phe-bot per Wikisource:Scriptorium#phe-bot. The bot was approved last year and never got the flag. It has replaced ThomasBot, so it will likely be very prolific. Thanks.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done by User:Zhaladshar, actually before I posted here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Username change requested

Cross-posting request from Wikisource:Requests for assistance#Changing username. His Shadow wishes to change username to Vanished User 5693. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Allocate transwiki importer rights

I am wishing to request that Jarekt (talk • contribs) by given Transwiki import rights. This will enable import of templates from Commons which we mirror. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This system won't let me give him transwiki importer rights. Not sure why or if that's something I can even give; but it's grayed out on the interface.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cr@p. Seems that you can allocate the higher rights, but not the simpler right. Weird, however, probably not important enough to escalate further. :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Let's get a Steward to do it. But also see Wikisource:Scriptorium#Authorize_Crats_to_promote_for_all_sysop_rights, where I have proposed crats should be able to grant all unbundled sysop rights.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, this is a perfect example of a good use of the right, Jarekt is not active enough here in other processes to need sysop rights but is highly trusted and experienced.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Done by Steward:Ruslik [1]. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Another request for change of user name

From 9cep22202@sneakemail.com (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC) to Jack Waugh consistent with my name change on Wikipedia and for the same reason, old name looks like an e-mail address. I accept the risks of using my real name. Thanks in advance.

Done.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Usurp request

I would like to request User:Alexandria to be usurped in hopes of changing my SUL to that name (current SUL is Kwsn). Kwsn (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

User has two deleted contributions from April this year. Email not enabled. I've left a message on their talk page, and will give them a week to reply. Hesperian 00:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but it's been a week, has the user responded at all? Kwsn (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 11:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Usurp request for User:Mehran

Hi, Please rename me to "Mehran" in order to make my SUL account global. (Confirmation diff on home wiki) Thanks MehranVB (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the current owner of the username if they have any objections to being usurped. Let's wait a week and see if we get a response. Hesperian 00:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 02:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm grateful. Mehran (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

User name change Dpkpm007 --> Deepak

• Current username:Dpkpm007 (talk • contribs)
• New username:Deepak (talk • contribs)
• Reason: I am active at ml.wiki with name of w:ml:user:Deepak . for same user name here also

Dpkpm007 (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Done. Note that this has detached your local account from your global login. Hesperian 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

User name change *Sebi* --> -sebi-

• Current username:*Sebi* (talk • contribs)
• New username:-sebi- (talk • contribs)
• Reason: Templates break on the * in my old username

--*Sebi* (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 01:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

User usurption (User:Gaurav2 to usurp User:Gaurav)

Hiya! I'm user Gaurav on most of the Mediawikiverse. I'm planning to upload some content to WikiSource in the next few days, and I was wondering if it'd be possible for me to usurp User:Gaurav (zero contributions). That way, SUL would let me use the same account on WikiSource that I use everywhere else! Proof that I am User:Gaurav is available through my commit on enwiki. Please let me know if you need any other information from me! -- Gaurav2 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the user if they object to being usurped, and will give them a week to reply. Hesperian 01:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks! BTW, I've left a message on your User talk page on the Commons! Nice bumping into you here as well. -- 128.138.65.81 06:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC) (but really User:Gaurav2)

Yeah, I saw that. Sorry, I've very very busy in real life at the moment, and ignoring lots of what is happening on WMF. Hesperian 11:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries! Just wanted to make sure the message got through :). -- 128.138.167.254 22:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC) (but again, really, User:Gaurav2)

Done. Hesperian 01:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Works perfectly. Thanks so much, Hesperian! -- Gaurav (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Bernard (usurp request)

Hi. I am the owner of the Bernard SUL-account and I wish to usurp this account. Here is the confirm. Thanks. Bernard77 (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the user if they object to being usurped, and will give them a week to reply. Hesperian 01:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 01:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Cswikisource-bot

When needed, I use him on other projects than my home cs.wikisource only in semi-manual mode (with -confirm switch) for interwiki linking – see contributions. He works on pywikipediabot framework. On Czech, German, Polish and Russian Wikisource he is already flagged as bot. If you prefer no flood on recent changes while he sometimes edits interwikis, please give him appropriate flag. Thx. --Milda (talk on cs:) 08:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Granted. Hesperian 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Username change

Could I please have my username changed to DuvetBlue? Peropi (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Done--BirgitteSB 04:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody help this soul out too -- Wikisource:Requests_for_assistance#Rename_Request? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is done--BirgitteSB 04:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Other

Offer of abuse filters from ruWS

Innv (talk • contribs) offered some of his abuse filters from ruWS "for tags / ban very short pages, against edits userpages of other users by anons". Do we think that these would have value for us? billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would not hurt JeepdaySock (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia:Revision deletion

Admins may have noticed that we got a software update yesterday (GMT). I'm still trying to get a handle on it, but it looks like admins can now hide entries in page histories and logs from the general public. Two main benefits that I can see:

• No more deletes and partial undeletes to get rid of bad revisions
• Hiding of nasty edit summaries (both in page moves and in regular edits) without eliminating the edit itself (so the entry by BadUser still shows up in the history, just without his edit summary and revision)

However, this doesn't do anything more than deletion does—admins can still see deleted revisions. If we really want to delete something so that even admins can't see it, we have to get an oversighter to do it.

Wikipedia plans to use this for libel, violations of privacy, and copyright violations. They are explicitly saying that generic insults shouldn't be removed, because they don't want to lose the ability for non-admins to participate in discussions about disruptive users.

Anyway, I haven't seen much libel or privacy violations here, so while useful I don't think we'll need this tool much to handle those. My first inclination was to think that this would be more useful for copyright violations, but honestly deletion works just as well in most cases. It seems to me that the primary place this will be useful is when a valid (public domain) work gets vandalized with copyrighted material. In that case, we'll be able to use this tool to hide the vandalism from public view without a cumbersome delete/undelete (which we're probably not doing anyway, at least most of the time).

But since most of our copyright violations are people creating new pages with works that are still under copyright, we won't need this tool—we will still just delete.

In general I'd say we should attempt to follow the Wikipedia policy. Overusing this tool would compromise records unnecessarily, so let's be careful with it.

One more thing—this now means we have a host of new MediaWiki pages to mess with. Two important ones are MediaWiki:Revdelete-text and MediaWiki:Revdelete-reason-dropdown. I can't find the one that generates the "Please confirm that you intend to do this" line, but if someone does we need to change the link at the end of it. Found it: MediaWiki:Revdelete-confirm. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 04:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Alert messages to users — should we?

We are not a site that does a lot of advertising of our messages/discussions. Today, I put a message up through Mediawiki:Sitenotice which was reversed then reinstated following a light conversation. Part of the discussion was around how we do it, this file or alternates? Should we do it, and what makes an item important enough to provide an alert? Plus plus plus. It would be interesting to get a perspective from administrators on whether they believe we should promote, what we should promote, where and how we should promote. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems OK to me to promote generally the idea that the "wiki" has a "public life". One can watchlist various noticeboards and will be prompted, but the boards are somewhat heavy going (Scriptorium has about 65 items in four sections). As complementary, done with a light touch and avoiding the route of mentioning matters simply because they are contentious, it can be a plus. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Idea, I had missed the whole discussion on Wikisource:Scriptorium#Phase_out_TextQuality_templates_and_system. It would be a commitment that would need to be maintained over the long term. Lots of good ideas flounder when the key person moves on. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the Watchlist notifications used on Wikipedia. I usually automatically dismiss any site notice I see without reading it, because I see so many of them jumping between different projects (commons, other languages, etc.). Personally I think it makes the most sense to draw attention to proposals that people have begun discussing and seem to have legs. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 16:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of whether we should promote and where, I think we should and that we should use the site notices (are there any other places other than MediaWiki:Sitenotice to do thos?) In terms of what, I think it should be for potentially really important discussions. Namely, anything that will require a lot of effort from the community or that makes a large change to the way we currently do things. And for how, I think there should also be a time limit on the promotion: maybe a week tops to make sure that the majority of the editors who want to participate can but those who aren't interested don't have to keep seeing the notice.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sitenotice is the default. Spangineer was eluding to how WP has morphed the use of Mediawiki:Watchlist-details to be the place to carry the notifications. It is a hack, and one that runs the risk of incorrect editing of the standard watchlist data. One wonders where there is a more formal implementation. With respect to time period, these are dismissible, and I would presume that they would exist as long as need them to be there, or for the length of the discussion. (Care and onus but not responsibility) — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I know when WMF puts up the site notices on WS and I dismiss them, they come back a day or so later. We could keep that from happening, right? Because that becomes highly annoying to me, especially since I'm not purging my cache or deleting any cookies. That's why I proposed a time limit.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Special:Watchlist trial in play

I have been over to WP, stolen the components of needed code, varied it slightly for local conditions and we now have the editable file Mediawiki:Watchlist-announcements to which we can add messages, and this is transcluded into Mediawiki:Watchlist-details. It has the DISMISS functionality, though to get that bit working editors will need to purge their (common.js) files. As mentioned above this is meant to be an alternative notice scheme to Sitenotice. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

We have quite a few broken redirects that need deleting. I've tagged a few for speedy deletion under M2, but it could be quite cumbersome to tag all of them so I thought I would post here instead. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also no easy way to kill the beasts automatically. For users, generally I would think that we would prefer to {{softredirect}} rather than hard redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I got it down to fairly manageable level again just a couple of days ago but the list of crossed-out WS Users redirecting to User pages on sister wikis has grown a bit since I first started pitching in. Is there any way to keep these from being included or are they still in need of fixing (i.e. there is a proper way to redirect these to other sister-wiki User accounts)? Just curious. George Orwell III (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrol For Diego_Grez

Hi guys, I wanted your opinion on adding autopatrol for Diego Grez. He only has 106 edits, but his edits appear to be pretty good. He also is a sysop on Wikipedia and the Commons. In addition, the quality of his work seems really good. What is the appropriate number before consideration? Thanks! --Mattwj2002 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction: No, not an admin on Wikipedia and the Commons! But Wikiversity and MediaWiki.org, smaller wikis ;) --Diego Grez (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing that. I see it as a formality for established wikimedia contributors. Welcome Diego, cheers for the contrib to Template:New texts, ask around if anything is a mystery. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was really fast! I hope to be helpful here too! Thanks! --Diego Grez (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Username Change request

Hi,I wish to unify my login for which i need to change my username from "Wiki Prasannakumar" to "Prasannakumar"on Wikisource & Wikibooks,on My Home wiki (Mr Wiki)My username is "Prasannakumar" which is common on all other wikipedias like en.wiki meta wiki etc.I now just need to change my username from "Wiki Prasannakumar" to "Prasannakumar",Wiki Prasannakumar (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an account of the name you wish already on Wikisource. It was created October 1, 2008. Was that not created by you? The account has no edits, so if it's not your account, I will usurp it for you.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• No,the above mentioned account created on 2008 is not mine ,I have created my first account on 1 sept.2009 on Marathi Wikipedia,so I request it to Usurp that account and Make "Prasannakumar"as unified Login account across all projects.

Thank you,Waiting for reply.Wiki Prasannakumar (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IP user block

I've blocked User:98.177.155.42 for a month. Most of his edits are fooling around on the talk page and sandbox, but we also have [2] and [3]. I was considering a 24-hour block, but saw an edit summary on his talk page pointing me at phttp://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=98.177.155.42 his global contributions]. He's been blocked on Commons, Meta, and en.WP for the same behavior he's exhibiting here, with minimal contributions elsewhere and none here, so I blocked him for a month. If you feel that's too long, feel free to change it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Page blanking

Copied from archived discussion also titled 'IP_Page_ blanking' for continuity

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)

← Back today as 75.47.145.142 (talk • contribs). Page-blanking as above of same 4 IP's plus the 25 December 2009 User's IP now included. I figure better to revert it and refresh the discussion here 'cause I'm really not sure what else to do about it (if anythng at all). George Orwell III (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Checked the IP range 75.47.128.0/19 (which seems to be Los Angeles based sbcglobal.net) and to note that there was also a June spray from BOOOOOOOOO! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL). Best we can do is when the person rocks up is revert as you have done, and then do a short term IP block on that range to stymy the attack. Just looks like they don't like facing the consequences of or opinions on their behaviour. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to have my outing oversighted

User:cygnis insignis graduitiously outed my name. I had come to Wikisource to escape the extreme harassment on other sites. User:John Vandenberg, checkuser, has been advising me. With the outing of my name I am now in danger of extremely nasty harassment again. I am requesting that User:cygnis insignis’s outing of me be oversighted so that it will not be revealed to those who wish to harm me. At my request I was gratious enough to redact it, but I do not feel safe enough unless it is oversighted and removed completely so that no one can retrieve it by going through the diffs.

Please help me with this. I am an extremely prolific and excellent contributor to wiki, and I don’t think I deserve this treatment when I am doing my best. A cabal of malicious editors should not be allowed to drive a well meaning editor away for ever. Sincerely, Another editor (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you require dispute resolution here on Wikisource, something can no doubt be done even though there is no formal apparatus. Requests for oversight are a separate matter, and naturally need to be handled by someone with the correct access. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How do I go about requesting this? Another editor (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

For oversight, Wikisource:Administrators lists three stewards, and I think you could appropriately contact any of them. For dispute resolution, I am someone who would take allegations of harassment very seriously. On the other hand admins cannot act on generalities, and disputes are resolved by identifying parties, putting diffs to allegations of behavioural issues, and getting those involved to describe in their own words exactly where the problems lie. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Hanteng and a speech of British Queen Elizabeth II

This user recently posted a speech of British Queen Elizabeth II here and on Chinese Wikisource. As I suspect them as copyvio, I have tagged copyvio and reported to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Queen_Elizabeth_II.27s_Remarks_to_the_people_of_the_United_States, but that user keeps reverting to restore the questionable text and to remove the copyvio tag on both English and Chinese Wikisources. I would like to ask any disinterested administrators to pay attention if that user keeps reverting pending disposition, and to temporarily protect the page in question if that user keeps making edit war involving possible copyvio. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC) (your administrator as a valuable bridge with Chinese community)

Move over redirect

Can an administrator please undo the moves I made earlier today, moving all of the following back over redirects?

• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789) to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/Preface to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/Preface
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/I to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/I
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/II to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/II
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/III to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/III
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/IV to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/IV
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/V to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/V
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/VI to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/VI
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789)/VII to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/VII

After which, I will match and split them to the scans for the 1897 edition and amend the header information accordingly. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, I think. You need to check which version in the history to revert to. Even if is the correct edition, why would you match and split? cygnis insignis 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I don't understand why I wouldn't match & split; the text matches the scans and matching speeds up the proofreading a little. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If the text is "proofread", why move it to a scan? If it isn't accurate, then the errors are more difficult to detect. It is slightly quicker for one person to merge an outside transcript to the scan, which is not 'proofreading', and marking it as such is … inaccurate. Both are good things, appetising and digestible, that doesn't mean they can be mashed together. In practice, in my experience, it greatly increases the amount of time and care needed. If one assume it is proofread, which PG texts are, we only need add the missing volumes, but their transcription doesn't help us much with a new scan-based transcript. The ocr is actually likely to be more accurate, where it isn't is predictable and obvious. cygnis insignis 12:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

New Gadget - UserMessages

• UserMessages: Adds a script for welcoming registered and IP users, with {{Welcome}} and {{Welcomeip}}. (See bottom left, below toolbox.)

Enjoy! :) -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The {{welcome}} template, an issue of its being changed

One of our administrators, Cygnis Insignis, has recently has unilaterally changed the template {{welcome}} back to a very basic format without consultation of the community. Upon being asked politely a few times to revert his edits to the prior status quo of the template, he has ignored my requests and I consider that he has tried to play word games and divert the discussion from that request. Beyond the unilateral decision to move, the decision seems to be based on his opinion that he doesn't like it, rather than an evidence-based approach of it being ineffective. I do not wish to enter into an edit/revert war, though that seems about the only way to put one's point across.

While I would agree that the text in the Welcome message^[1] is not perfect, I consider that that was better a welcome than the default text, and in my opinion, there were a number of components that I believe significantly brought benefits. Built within {{welcome}} are a number of templates, acting as display banners, that highlighted active and current areas at our WS — {{PotM}}^[2], {{CotW}}, {{active projects}}^[3] — and showed that we are not a stagnant pool, and allowed newcomers to get involved with current works where more experience users can collaborate, train and mentor. I feel that we now have static talk pages and have no ability beyond the front page to showcase and highlight the activity on our site. I feel that this degrades the collaborative efforts and the ability to interact with new users.

At this point in time, I would like to see the prior template returned, at least, in the majority of its detail around active collaborations. If then there are requirements for change, let us have the discussion, and if it needs some nice building, then we should get some assistance from someone with those skills. I am not happy with the current form, and with the WS:PotM for November being validation month, I believe that the active display is an imperative for a successful campaign.^[4] — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

1. (note template is now at {{welcome tabbertab}}, and to note that part of the components that made it function have been removed from Mediawiki:common.css)
2. believe demonstrated winner to newbies, see the works completed, and list of editors contributing at Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month/contributors
3. an automated weekly rotation of seven projects: Dictionary of National Biography Project, Encyclopædia Britannica Project, Wikisource:United States Executive Orders Project, New Student's Reference Work Project, Popular Science Monthly Project, Encyclopaedia Biblica Project, Wikisource:WikiProject Law Project
4. Last year we completed validation on 20 works, worked on 8 others with 29 contributors.

I agree. If the welcome template will be changed, it should be a result of a community decision, not because someone expressed dissatisfaction with it and another ran with the idea. This is one of our most visible templates, and it shouldn't look like an eyesore (for one) and it should be changed by consensus (for two).

That said, I will agree that some of the text should be changed, but stripping out all the other aspects of the template is not the way to go. I'd support a temporary restoration of {{welcome}} (which now exists at {{welcome tabbertab}} while we resolve the issue.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 12:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think CI's refusal to revert was warranted, given that you opposed his change and the older version had been in place for quite some time.

That said, I really don't like the huge welcome template. If someone had put that monstrosity on my talk page when I arrived, it would have been deleted pretty quickly. I would much prefer to see something a) small, b) simple, and c) that feels more personal. Back in the good ol' days, we had a nice, simple three line banner. Sometime later the big thing arrived, and I created User:Spangineer/welcome and have since used that exclusively when welcoming newbies (which I admit isn't all that often). Sure, my welcome template would benefit from an update and a few links to active projects, but it's more friendly, feels less canned, and doesn't take up the whole screen.

But, to each his own. I'd like to see {{welcome}} decrease in size and gaudiness, but better to hash it out on Template talk:Welcome (which, pathetically, is a red link) than make a unilateral change in face of opposition. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 12:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That got moved with the previous template. I have moved that back into place. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I was (to my chagrin) unaware of that discussion page. Cygnis's actions seem much closer to an example of "be bold" than I realized. But a preferable approach might have been development of the alternative version in parallel, followed by an alert on the Scriptorium of the ensuing discussion, especially given his concern with "ownership" of the template. In any case, I don't see any issue with two (or more) welcome templates existing, with each pointing to the other in the documentation. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple versions of various WELCOME templates was what had existed. There are a number of welcome templates, eg. {{welcomeip}}, and Cygnis's action of moving the prior version and overrides the welcome actions taken by others. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You and Longfellow (far below) touch upon another point that is not all that clear to me - what exactly is the intent when applying this template? Granted everybody is welcome here at first & without question (the user's subsequent actions or history revealed dictating the eventual degree of overall acceptance), are we trying to a.) recruit contributors to WS in general without regard to specific interests or subject areas, b.) replying to edits or contributions that happen to align with the observer's "watch list" in hopes of drawing in members for defined sub-sets of interests or subject areas or c.) is to just to tag by acknowledgment the edits, contributions and the like for some sort of analysis or tracking purposes?

The only way I can see hosting such a universal and unbiased welcome would be in the case of a.) where the user applying the the template is doing so in the role of an ambassador of WS and its mission - not as regular contributor nor as an administrator with their tasks & hardly as a pitchman looking for help transcribing the works of Atlantis. Instance b.) seems akin to those now upset about certain welcomes given to certain participants as a reaction to specific visitor behaviour now being swapped out universally. To this I say its about time to develop your own customized welcome and stop using the universal one. For instance c.) I'd be at a loss to make a substantial comment because other than to give the appearance of politely welcoming with one outreached hand only to smack a troublesome or offending visitor a instant afterwards, I see no evidence of any post application analysis or tracking scores related to this template. I haven't been here as long as some of you but I would assume something like that would be automated by now. George Orwell III (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

To GOIII, for named accounts created here whether they had edited or not (primarily think new and/or red talk), I have applied {{welcome}}; whereas for IP addresses I have applied {{welcomeip}}; mostly done from patrolling recent changes, to which to me equates to case a). If I have some comment about someone's edits, in whichever nature, it is separate paragraphs, and annotated as extra to the welcome, especially if they have done DNB transcriptions. My commentary about tracking is anecdotal in my subjective assessment in the participation in PotM and the new users who participate, and the feedback about the exercise being a rewarding entry to WS. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Re SDrewth, Ahhh... I did not consider there may be some differentiation between users who register an account here on WS and have secondary & subsequent auto/global account creations occur across our sister sites and vice versa - where account creation happened elsewhere and WS is just one part of the global account creations afterwards.

If you've come to realize this differentiation (a likelihood for post-registration participation) exists via your role as a check user, then I agree some shift in the welcome scheme is warranted to continue to account for these newbie's [or in the case of a change being implemented in the near future, the change must consider the ramifications to these newbie's as a factor prior to consensus].

Again, not knowing the specific ins and outs of what the virtual cavity search a user-check might be comprised of, I do not see any reason that a differentiated approach between named or ip users should be in practice IF there is no follow-up analysis or scoring being done (an idiot is an idiot; with an ip or with an alias, the product of his or her edits won't change much no matter which one they are using at any given moment).

The two forms of account identification and the blurbs that follow for each can easily be melded into one a.) or Ambassador level welcome template. If just this merge-to-streamline suggestion is received well by a majority of the concerned, maybe we can move to deciding which template(s) should [or should not] receive this refinement now that a revert back to the previous has occurred but now with further discussion made possible (& hopefully taking place taking place). George Orwell III (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with something unobjectionable, and more useful, or can be easily modified if it isn't. I raised a number of concerns about the template, these are well outlined on the talk; first among these is only about three people know how to edit the thing. Second would be, here was no consensus for its implementation. I had to lobby for the mention of Hitler to be removed. It is loaded with subtext, all very unwelcoming, and if there is anything useful it is buried in a pointless arrangement of tabs. Some didn't like having a artwork of a nude, the response was a tendentious revert and belittling comment: half the planet has cultural and religious prohibition on nudity, they have the right to find it offensive and not have it shoved in their face. Another objection was to the smug tone, it very much resembles something composed in response to what was perceived as vandalism, I say perceived, because the user reverted others on the basis they had tenure and the new account did not. The latter turned out to be right in many of the examples I reviewed. It is not one objection, I suggested that it be moved from the default for over a year. The whole business reeks of 'own', 'we' are in charge and you have to ask to change anything. I added something resembles the welcome at wikipedia, it is simple, doesn't require special coding, and everything else that was potentially or actually objected to. I didn't refuse to revert, the bold experiment was opposed and eventually moved. I find it incredible that what should be a no-brainer is the source of an attack on my character and dismissal of my objections. I thought very carefully about it for over a year, it was not a decision taken lightly. I could have continued to ask for changes, at the rate of two words for every thousand given in opposition, but the unobjectionable version resembled the one it replaced, WITHOUT DISCUSSION, or any of the other ones. This embarrassing blather is thrust at every sul that passes by, whether they edit here or not. cygnis insignis 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with your judgemental vocabulary. While making a grammatical statement the content should still be seen as your opinion, rather than fact. If you had concerns about my actions, then please separate that discussion ...

1. Unobjectionable and more useful? In the eye of the beholder, and firmly an opinion; variance from your opinion is right or wrong? What if I don't like it and as I explained, I don't find it more useful? I have to just shut up because you made a decision? I ask for you to revert, to no avail, so beyond having an edit war with you, or a screaming barney on a talk page, what is the avenue to seek a resolution? I do not sneak behind backs to either organise a cabal on other talk pages or via email, I bring it forward for a discussion, as it is our shared site.
2. The consensus for its previous implementation is not the point at this time, and that argument is a distraction; that was a battle for its time, and with whomever implemented it (two wrongs don't make a right). It was before my time and not of my doing, so please don't shake that stick at me.
3. I reverted image changes twice, and both times state that discussion should take place, and after the second due to the nature, I replaced the image though with something useful rather than a blank or an image not in keeping with the other images. Neither were REVERTS, both were undo 1. <(Undo revision 1939562 by Unforgettableid (talk) Usually we would do that by discussion)> & 2. <(Undo revision 2121388 by Y'hoshia (talk) such a change requires discussion)>, whereas your undo of me is so much nicer <(Undo revision 2126002 by Billinghurst (talk) discussed, ad nauseum)> and the only discussion is <Replacing the picture of a woman with a picture of a baby> to which you did not contribute and could hardly be called ad nauseum, when it too place at the time of the last edits.
4. I love your use of language for character denigration, I try to not to make it personal, whereas it seems that you believe that it is okay to judge the person and to me it seems that your comments are personally disparaging and aimed to wound. I ask that you stop it. I personally have not attacked your character and have been trying to address the issue.
5. My whole statements through that page are about a consultative process and not unilateral action.
6. ) You have previously been using another welcome template, and your replacing that template indicates that your thoughts take primacy. You stated that you preferred template {{welcome-newuser}}, and I said that of that choice or what was in place, I preferred what was present. I am not entitled to that opinion?
7. Why didn't you develop a replacement, and then seek comment and then seek community agreement for the replacement?

My edits to that page have been a) swapping out dead {{SotD}} following discussion at WS:S; and replacing with {{active projects}} also following discussion; b) swapping tab primacy; c) undoing of vandalism; d) and undoing two new users edits with a handful of edits, one blanking a picture, and the other some unlikely image, asking them to have a discussion, not to change without discussing. Asking them to discuss is neither unreasonable or impractical? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

While I too also object to the implementation of changes that feel more like prison rape than being bold in the face of bureaucracy - the tabber-tab thing had rarely displayed properly for me, never mind seeing actual tabs. The handful of folks who I have sent to WS for a reference that managed to get tagged by somebody with it have at times come back and commented that visiting here was anything but welcoming. In short, the change was probably needed (and welcomed here at the personal level) but not made within an acceptable process that respects both other administrators as well as the best interests of the readers and the project as whole moving forward. This has more to do about deficiencies with the process than this particular incident. Frankly, I don't see the need for an Announcement or Proposal section over on Scriptorium if the first you hear about either an announcement or proposal is the post implementation patch or work-arounds.
I have no position on reverting the switch or not. However, I do believe following wikipedia's lead is not always the optimal solution for what is being attempted here on Wikisource. The current blurb could use some small, unobtrusive refinements in the eye-candy area (the current "active" banner not being one of them) but the current text itself seems fine (IMHO). George Orwell III (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I had already added links to the potm, the unfortunately named cotw, but I put the banner for active projects [4]. If people want to participate in those , they are aware of them, they on advertised on the front page too. I don't think I'm depriving anyone of the idea they are mentoring, or that being an admin means much. It was nice I get "a right of reply", and that this is on the AN notice-board, it reveals much about the petty vindictiveness behind the ingratiating chumminess when addressing everything with dissembling comments and stonewalling posture. cygnis insignis 14:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that by altering the template, CI has altered the talk page of many users, including many who were welcomed by other people. I didn't like the change, and have replaced the new template with the old contents on my page.--Longfellow (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Traditional wiki wisdom at w:WP:CYCLE does apply here. I vote we move forward along lines that would suggest. The real point is whether there is a logjam on this issue to address, or not. If there is, namely a backlog of things that might well have been put in place but have not, then we need a fresh consensus (and not a navel-gazing examination of process). If there is a consensus to go back to the status quo ante, then the outcome is necessarily a simple revert. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Cygnis has reverted, and I thank him for that. As I expressed above my aims with some dynamic aspects aka eye-candy (GO's words), and possibly seen as too close to aspects, I am happy to withdraw from the particulars if that is seen as advisable and a means to help resolve aspects to which I have been seen to contribute. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of clarification - 'my' eye-candy is nothing more than subtle uses of background & border colours with a dash of font differentiation in between. See more with less to see. The rationale being simply to help visualize concepts and organize the related for those instances where plain-old eyesight is letting me down! Rotating gifs, header bar-colours, obscure but impressive jpegs and the like are not what I meant there actually. Of course, different folks have different tastes and that is fine by me... but please don't make my candy sour. George Orwell III (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell III (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal at WS:S

At Wikisource:Scriptorium#Installation of mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) I have put forward the proposal to have the extension installed at this wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about test for admin inactivity

I have started the following discussion Wikisource talk:Adminship#Correct wording for INACTIVE administrator? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Abuse filters

In Special:AbuseFilter I have

• altered Filter 1 that watches for the lack of {{header}} template in the main ns edits, and it should no longer warn or tag for the templates {{disambiguation}}, {{versions}} & {{translations}}.
• altered Filter 2 that watches for the lack of {{author}} template in the Author ns, and it no longer tags for the template {{disambiguation}}.
• added Filter 14 that watches for the addition of [[Category:YYYY works]], to give an indication of how often and where the category is manually added to works. For detail, see Wikisource:Bot requests#Years of works for background.

— billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal?

User:Etherapist only edit cross wiki Thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Has an element of that intent, however, there is no search evidence that it is catchy text elsewhere. Watch the space is all I can think. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Deleted as G1, still no cross wiki edits, appears random. Jeepday (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

CSS change request

Perhaps I should have posted this here. The change would remove automatic TOC numbering on articles with their own content numbering system. It would just involve making a small change to Mediawiki:Common.css and would only result in changes on articles where editors decided it was appropriate. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alert for a type of CSS spam

There was recent spam attack at If it wasn't for the 'Ouses in Between and it is noted elsewhere as being an old Wikimedia persistent malicious foe. Can I suggest that if this type of spam is noticed further that the account be immediately blocked, and a notification be made here, or if you are in IRC, then getting the attention of a steward would be great (channel #wikimedia-stewards). Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/AmyRosePwnsU :(

Done thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Poetlister

Poetlister blocks

Just a quick note that I've block Cato (talk • contribs), Londoneye (talk • contribs), Poetlister (talk • contribs) and Quillercouch (talk • contribs), all indefinitely, all with email blocked. These are acknowledged stale sockpuppets of a current user. I've taken care not to autoblock, as there is currently no consensus to block the puppetteer. Hesperian 10:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done the same for Bedivere (talk • contribs), Whipmaster (talk • contribs), Yehudi (talk • contribs), and Crum375 (talk • contribs). I think that is all, at least it is all the ones listed on the confession list from the Scriptorium archive which had been created here.--BirgitteSB 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have put {{blocked user}} on a couple of the accounts, though we may wish to look whether that is the means to proceed, and what we do with talk pages, plus blocked an open proxy that was shown to be in use. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW... 'Ole.Holm' is still "open" to Wikisource [5] -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked that one just to be consistent here.--BirgitteSB 01:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Longfellow account has sent an email in the past couple of days, and from existing discussions I do not see that I have the authority to put in place either an extended or permanent ban on the account's email activities, though believe that it would implicit that no email activities would be expected from the account at this time. My action has been to put in place a 1 day ban on email activities and to refer the matter here for discussion. I have consulted with Pathoschild, and have emailed to CUs at other sites seeking their feedback. The measures that I see are 1) extend the block for for a defined period, 2) to let the block lapse, all of these being contingent upon being able to progress other forthcoming proposals. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of checkusers' and bureaucrats' roles in Longfellow affair

Is aiding socking a breaking of community trust? If so, the CUs of this project seem to have directly abused the community's trust in letting him knowingly return and then run for adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am the CU who has come into this one fresh (arriving post the ruckus) so had to read through all the dross, without the scars from the previous occasion, and try to get a perspective of what was being asked.

1. there was no ban at enWS, see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Poetlister discussion
2. there was no ban at WMF, or any global issuance
3. there was a return to editing under conditions that I understand were set at the time and aligned with w:WP:CLEANSTART, limited to one account only
4. the CU supervising this part has run checks to check against w:WP:SOCK
5. within the rules/limitation of the use of CU tools, we look for suspicious behaviour and socks

I did not see that I have been purposefully aided socking, or tried to either mislead the community, or breach the trust that you have put within my judgement.

We have made open explanations to the CU community, and laid the facts (as we saw them) to a section of the CU/Stewards, and fielded their questions, and listened to their opinions. Yes, we had decisions to make, and options to consider, that is what we elected to do. Were all our decisions correct, obviously not. Have I learnt new things, absolutely. If you have evidence to the contrary then happy to hear such. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't this become more of an issue than it should have been due to the User's self-nomination rather than (what I view to be) the typical 3rd party nomination route? If so, maybe that's a point that needs to be addressed and clarified moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the email to him is phrased particularly as "nominate yourself", but a making a requirement of him to self-nominate wasn't discussed among us at the time. That phrasing is really due to the fact that I largely wrote the draft. My thinking was that it is one thing for him to say, "Yes, I can agree to your proposal." And entirely separate thing for him to actually start the clock ticking to have his past accounts revealed on-wiki. I was thinking that I wanted him to take another clearly active step before an adminship discussion began rather having one automatically start upon a passive agreement to the proposal. Also I considered forcing him to make an additional move after agreeing but before the adminship discussion opened, to be an extra delay where would have the chance to change his mind if there were any second thoughts about it on his end. I didn't consider the message to imply that he could *only* self-nominate, but I purposely set it up so the default assumption on his part might be that he needed to actively make a request of John or someone else for a nomination. I didn't lay this whole thought process out for everyone else at the time. Instead I just drafted a proposal that met all the basic requirements we had explicitly discussed and added in whatever else I thought to be wise, and sent it on for review with a note to edit mercilessly. There ended up not being any substantive changes made to my draft.--BirgitteSB 02:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I find no fault with the solution crafted or how it was played out personally. I have no sense of betrayal of trust or mis-use of power either. Had the user been more forthcoming about previous actions and the status those actions had reached to date, then let the community compare and contrast the contributions to WS fully knowing that past, the outcome may have gone somewhat differently than it has. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

[moved from Wikisource:Administrators#Clarification of Longfellow's past editing to keep this discussion in one place. Hesperian 00:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)]

Seeing as how admin have blocked Poetlister for sock puppetry, what are we to do about CUs and Bureaucrats that abused their power by allowing such to happen? This would seem to be a complete breach of community trust. After all, this is a cross wiki banned user who used alternate names to sneak into positions of power and confidence, and I know a few people here know of his background. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Clearly some decisions were made by CUs and/or crats that some people here will disagree with. But when seen in context, as a succession of small decisions and non-decisions made over a long period of time with limited information and especially without the benefit of hindsight, I don't see how anyone could claim that they acted improperly. Faced with a difficult situation, they acted in good faith, and ended up taking a course of action that didn't work out and is easily criticised after the fact. Personally, I don't feel my trust has been breached. Hesperian 01:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Firstly a few clarifications: The Poetlister (talk • contribs) account and other socks have been blocked with email disabled. Longfellow (talk • contribs) is not currently blocked, as a consensus has never developed that he should be banned here, as opposed to being merely restricted to one account. The accounts recently blocked had been left open partially, I imagine, by oversight of some people who would have blocked them if they had thought of it and partially, I imagine, because some thought it would be good to see if he would abide by the restriction to one account voluntarily. Thinking perhaps, that if he would not abide, blocking these accounts might merely delay people from recognizing his socking as they would be more familiar with the existing socks popping up than any new accounts he might create. Recently we learned that he has been logging in to these old socks to use the "Email this user" feature, and as of course, that use fails to show up in Recent Changes, it now would seem to be less prudent to leave them unblocked since monitoring them is not as easy as it might have been thought to be. Personally, as opposed to the pure speculation above, I never gave the issue of the status of these accounts nearly so much thought as have given it today. I certainly have always known that he was not permitted to edit more than one account, but whether it was technically possible for him to edit with any of these accounts is not something I really considered given the lack of visible activity on them.

Secondly as to what you can do about those that you feel abused their power: Opening a discussion here so you might get some answers and figure out exactly what happened so you can determine if you really think any of our actions have been an abuse of power is a good first step. If enough people think that we have abused our power a Vote of Confidence could immediately be started. Alternatively for a smoother transition, our power could be rescinded during our annual confirmations, ideally with others crats and CU's being elected to these positions in the meantime. Personally, I hope that when people examine the situation with all facts and explanations processed, they might conclude that we did not abuse our power. That instead they might conclude that we used the power we were elected to wield with good intentions, but ultimately foolishly and without being as diligent as we ought to have been. I hope people will still trust us, and trust that we have learned to be more diligent and, hopefully, wiser due to this experience. I do however respect your ability to conclude otherwise and I am happy for the part that I have played in providing the way that you might remove me from a position of trust if you do so conclude. It is relief to me that we have such a clear process and that I shall never have to guess if you all still trust me or not. It is a relief, because trying to fulfill my duties without the trust of the community could only be harmful to en.WS and the absolute last thing I want to do is to cause harm here. When my actions have been harmful, as in this particular situation, I see it as a personal failure. I am truly sorry for what has happened here, that I was not more diligent than I was in examining Longfellow's activities and that my judgment was not better in general.--BirgitteSB 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Acting in good faith merely means the CUs who allowed this to happen should not be banned, it is not a defense for screwing up. Obviously, he had multiple screen names here as verified by the recent mass blocking. These were not legitimate screen names, especially when he used many of them to cause problems relating to email cross-wiki. This is a user who had major cross wiki issues, impersonation issues, and stealing the identities of others issues. "Clean start" does not apply to such a user. Only those without blocks and without problems have the right to clean start, not controversial editors trying to hide from their past. At least one user, John Vandenberg, definitely knows a lot of this person's background and I am ashamed that this had to be revealed by others and not those put in place to protect us from such people. The community deserves to know about such actions, especially when it goes up to potentially giving such a person a position of trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To tie an anonymous account to an account the most personal details of which are on the public record is arguably an act of outing arguably contrary to our culture, though arguably it would have been justified in this case. To do so in one's official capacity as local checkuser or bureaucrat without prior evidence of local wrongdoing is arguably a violation of our site's privacy policy. It's easy to sit here after the fact and fire cheap shots, but the reality is the situation was not clear-cut. It was fraught with complexities and difficulties, there were no right answers, the people with elected to make decisions on matters like this one did their best, and in the end no harm was done. Hesperian 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That argument is completely inappropriate. You have no right to argue that there is any "outing" by revealing a guy is socking, especially when he had over 5 other accounts. It is 100% unacceptable and I am deeply shamed to even read the above. It shows a complete disregard for ethical standards and an abuse of trust in addition to being completely incivil in misstating our policies and procedures. I honestly can't believe you think the above would be acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Do realize that Hesparian is talking meatspace identity here? I really don't want to leave pointers to this info and I imagine Hesparian's vagueness is due to the same reason.--BirgitteSB 05:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

John's email to Poetlister stating that Poetlister would be revealed as such after a year invalidates any possible claims that a clean start could even be done to protect the identity. However, it doesn't matter what Poetlister's real life identity is or not, no user who has committed cross-wiki abuse has a right to "clean start", especially when that user committed multiple instances of identity fraud to reinforce that abuse. I already provided information that Poetlister was passing himself off as yet another woman that he clearly was not after the March 18 date. John Vandenberg had this information, as did the Stewards and CU list. Knowing that this user was using multiple accounts to email people while having another "clean" identity to get around scrutiny is highly unacceptable. In either case, you have no grounds nor does Hesperian. Instead of apologizing for a complete breach of trust you try to rationalize bad behavior? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a quote from the CUs's "deal" with Poetlister proving that there was no intention to protect Poetlister's identity: "As a compromise we believe we can protect your initial run for adminship from the inevitable drama, so long as your full history of accounts on en.WS are made known at your first confirmation hearing. Given that you are successful, this compromise will give you the opportunity to establish yourself as a useful and trustworthy admin who will be capable of weathering the drama of Cato's history at the first year's confirmation." All that was given was a year time to build "trust" with the community before he was outed. Thus, any claim that his privacy needed to be protected would only put any "outing" on the CUs and an Ombudsman investigation would need to take place. So, Hesperian's attempt to use policy in what can be construed as an intimidating manner only further shows that there was abuse of trust by CUs. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There are to separate issues here. The CUs allowed a Cleanstart to Longfellow. The Crats allowed Longfellow to go for admin initially under the Cleanstart provided he agreed to abandoned his Cleanstart at the annual confirmation. Frankly I didn't realize the magnitude of the meatspace concerns till this has all blown up, but once he agreed with the proposal any concerns of improper outing disappeared. This was not necessarily true before December.--BirgitteSB 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I also do not feel that any trust has been mislaid in this case. It's very easy for anyone with 20:20 hindsight (i.e. anyone) to say "well you should have thought of that", but at the time, I don't think the local CUs or 'crats would have realistically been able to surmise that Poetlister was abusing the email privileges of the accounts given that the accounts were otherwise dormant, or indeed, should have tried to use their tools to find out. (I could be wrong: this is what I have gleaned from the discussion so far; please correct me if that is not the case)

A breach of trust for me would be misuse of the tools given to them, rather than an oversight (or a series of small but cumulative oversights). In this case, I don't see how the CU or 'crats have done this. In fact, it seems to me that they acted deliberately to not overstep the bounds of their self-perceived domains of authority. In general, I would say that the CUs and 'crats are an effective and trustworthy bunch, and I am entirely happy to have them wielding the tools they do! I'd consider action against them only if they did something that is either actively malicious, in breach of their terms of appointment, or dangerously incompetent. They have behaved in none of these ways, and, moreover, BirgitteSB has been laudably frank and forthcoming about her own part in this little tale, which is something I am pleased to say I can confidently expect from Wikisource's staff. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

John Vandenberg has long term evidence that Poetlister abused email privileges on Wikisource as I have forwarded him at least 4 emails connected to Poetlister from Wikisource email servers. Please do not speak when you clearly do not know what you are talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava, you're going off the deep end in precisely the manner that has seen you blocked repeatedly at Wikipedia. Our standards of conduct are higher still, and I for one will not have you dragging the tone of this place down by saying uncivil things like "Please do not speak when you clearly do not know what you are talking about." Pull your head in, and conduct yourself in a civil, collegial manner. Hesperian 06:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing incivil in asking someone to have facts first. It is incivil to make baseless accusations of incivility. Your accusations of "going off the deep end" are removed from reality, taint perceptions, and are not acceptable characterizations. They violation both NPA and AGF. This is a major problem when you misused our policies to suggest things that clearly aren't true nor based on standard practices. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself formally warned. The way you are conducting yourself is not acceptable on this site. Moderate your tone and rhetoric, or you will be blocked. Hesperian 06:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, there have been 2 other administrators and only you have said something. You have made personal attacks and been incivil. You have made accusations of tone that are untrue. You made claims about our privacy policy that are untrue and you have not addressed the fact that your comments do not match that the CUs would have revealed his identity upon confirmation. You made accusations of possible outing when they would have provided the information themselves. That is called a "chilling effect" and not acceptable conduct. You are involved, you have been incivil, you have violated multiple policies, and your accusations amount to nothing. You do not see this as a major problem? I have been completely polite, which is not the same for you. Your original post was incredibly hostile and inappropriate for an administrator. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian has been officially warned for making incivil comments, personal attacks, and hostile claims about privacy policy violations that do nothing but create a poisonous atmosphere. No one else has felt the need to act in this discuss as he has and that is telling. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

During what time periods were these emails sent?--BirgitteSB 05:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, you have forwarded two emails to me. One you forwarded to me on April 25 and I receipted on June 12, and another sent and received July 2. The first was discussed by the three CUs, but nothing was done so as to not expose you as the one who had forwarded it to us (as was your request to not be implicated); the second was not. If there are another two which were sent to me, could you help me find them (e.g. by providing Message IDs) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

From the other page: "On March 28, 2010, Poetlister privately disclosed to checkusers that he would resume editing with an account to be called Longfellow." March 28 is before both April and June. This is why users like myself are upset about this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I found a March 18th email from Poetlister that I thought I sent as part of a set but I see that it was not copied over in April when I got tired of being sent the emails. This email is being forwarded now so John has more complete copies. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of that statement was that Poetlister did the 'right' thing by informing checkusers of their new account, before they decided to resume editing under a new account, and has not edited from proxies, which is nuisance behaviour.

Since you're asking for the heads of all involved, the above needs to be clarified for this context, so that you get the right head on the pillow. It would be mine, if anyones.

I was the checkuser that Poetlister informed on March 28, and it wasn't until Jun 12 (when I actioned the Poetlister email forwarded by Ottava Rima) that I informed the other en.ws CUers that Longfellow had privately informed me that they were Poetlister.

The email from Poetlister to Ottava Rima was a concern, and there were other minor concerns, but for various reasons there was no action taken. Some of those reasons are being re-evaluated now.

Sending emails from the 'old' account is not clearly 'socking' or 'abuse', nor does it invalidate someones attempt to re-establish themselves under a new identity. Catching up with an old friend via email using the old alias would be acceptable. Whether or not 'abuse' is occurring depends on the content of the emails, and whether the recipient should know about the new account. In this case, I could see no reason that Ottava Rima should know about Poetlister's new account. Their contributions never came close to overlapping.

I wish Poetlister's many accounts had had email blocked from the very beginning, but they were not banned here.

One data point that all CUers and crats missed is that Longfellow had resumed editing on Wikiquote. I had looked at this many times between April to July, I didn't think to look at Wikiquote when Longfellow contacted the CUers at the end of November in regards to adminship. I think some of the CUers and crats did notice it, but assumed one of the checkusers must have already communicated with the Wikiquote CUers. Had this issue been raised in our discussion, we would have informed Wikiquote CUers of their site-ban being violated, and that would have been the end of that.

One more point, I have knowingly broken the local checkuser policy by not recording my use of checkuser wrt Poetlister on WS:AN or the checkuser-l list.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just noting that Poetlister sent me an email from his wikiquote account in Apr 15, 2010. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed by this whole affair, but am glad it is getting sorted out in a (mostly) cordial way. One question/concern: is there precedent for permitting a RfA to go through without disclosing previous accounts, where said previous accounts are thought to be significant enough to reveal in the future? I don't see a good reason for this: either the user has "broken from the past" and proven himself a good user, or he hasn't.

In a controversial case like this one, I think bureaucrats/CUs should make sure that admin candidates reveal significant alternate accounts. If they believe that doing so would cause unnecessary drama (as in this case), that's an indication that there hasn't been enough time since the alleged "break from the past" occurred. The halfway measure of "we won't reveal now, but we will later," is not ideal: Wikisource's existence is not dependent on having one more administrator, and the user's "good behavior" can be observed just as well with or without the admin flag.

In my view, bcats and CUs should have encouraged Longfellow not to run and set a date at which point they would reevaluate and see if, in their judgment, enough "good history" had been developed for him to be trusted as an administrator, in spite of his previous history. Regardless of what he then might have done—heeded their advice or submitted an RfA anyway—a summary of his history (no details required) should have been revealed upon his submission of an RfA.

I say all this not to criticize, but to hopefully influence how these things are addressed in the future. As has been said, hindsight is 20/20—now that the deed is done, we can learn from it. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight, you are right. While WS's existence doesn't hinge on the fact that we need another admin, it is part of our culture to grant the tools to competent editors who have done good work (hence the reason we have so many of them). I know in my part of the decision the fact that we are so free to grant tools was playing a part.

Also, for me, I was disappointed with the confirmation discussion of Poetlister when he/she lost adminship in 2008. I felt that too much of the discussion was about events that didn't happen on WS. Of course, there were problems on WS that we needed to consider (and did consider) which Poetlister committed, but the vitriol of the entire discussion and how half of it referenced crap that took place on WP or other projects left a bad taste in my mouth.

I also believe in second chances and thought (hoped, maybe?) that after two years things would have been different with Poetlister (then acting as Longfellow). Ultimately, I was wrong; but I believed he deserved the chance to prove me wrong or right and shouldn't be written off immediately.

I was the major voice in pushing for a delayed reveal of Longfellow's account history. I wanted him to have a period of time in which he could act as an admin and show that he was a trustworthy person to hold those rights, because I thought once the reveal happened, it would be a pretty heated discussion once users on other projects caught wind of it. (Of course, I believed the WS users would give him a fair hearing--even if they again decided to remove the sysop rights during the confirmation discussion--but I wanted Longfellow to have another defense against the mud-flinging that would ultimately ensue.)

I was ultimately wrong in most of my decisions regarding this, obviously. But I do believe everyone deserves a clean start, and I was hoping I was right about Poetlister/Longfellow actually sincerely wanting a clean start as well.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that the facts available show that admins and CU involved acted appropriately. There is no indication of wrong doing on any ones part. I think that it was clear to anyone with any wiki experience that Longfellow was not a wikivirgin, and I for one voted for him as admin with that assumption. Longfellow could have made some different choices, when the questions at the admin vote started going they way the did. He has desire to help the project, as do we all. I have personally invited him to return to editing and volunteered to nominate him for admin [6]. We may disagree regularly, we all are working towards the same goals with slightly different perspectives. There is no indication that anyone acted in bad faith, especially given the complex and sensitive nature of this attempt to return a volunteer to active and respected status. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Failed. The proposed vote of confidence has failed to obtain the support of three established users within a reasonable time. The proposal was made on 30 December 2010, more than two months have past with only the proposer and one other editor showing support. (The second editor is noted to be User:Shalom, a point that he has disclosed on ew.wp here but did not note on his account on en.ws.). The nomination is moot with respect to several of the nominees. First, John Vandenberg resigned his CheckUser tools here. Second, the following users have stood for annual confirmation since this proposal was made (whether or not the discussions have closed), thus mooting the proposal with respect to them (an annual confirmation is none other than an automatic vote of confidence): Zhaladshar was reconfirmed in January; Billinghurst is currently pending annual confirmation at Wikisource:Administrators, and BirgitteSB is due for review and must stand for annual confirmation within the month. This leaves only Pathoschild; for whom, again, there is insufficient support for the proposal. (the closer notes that he was nominated (successfully) for admin by John Vandenberg and that he has cast a support vote for Billinghurst in the reconfirmation. As the issue as to both users is moot, this does not disqualify him from closing this proposal.)--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Call for vote of confidence

The page requires three people to agree to a call for a vote of confidence. In regards to the above, these are the people that are proposed for such a vote:

CUs who knowingly allowed a mass sock puppetry with cross wiki abuse to start under a new name while also having long term evidence that the user abused email privileges (as I have copies of emails I have forward to John Vandenberg, the Stewards List, and the CU's list that I was receiving emails from Poetlister's Wikisource email accounts): Billinghurst, John Vandenberg, Pathoschild,

Bureaucrats who knowingly allowed this to continue per own admittance: BirgitteSB, Zhaladshar.

So be it proposed and if three agree then each call will start. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support a vote of confidence called for 3 CUs and 2 Bureaucrats unless it can be proved that they were not involved in the discussion leading up to allowing Poetlister to use yet another sock against WMF standards and community policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support epic drama. I personally got pwned by Poetloser and he convinced me to waste tens of hours of my time trying to prove that he was innocent. What a liar. What a bunch of ignoramuses you all are for not seeing this coming from nine months ago. Chutznik (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note User:Chutznik SUL, Unless I missed something. last edit of this user was on Wikipedia February 2010, just prior to a one week block for socking on RfA [7]. Jeepday (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Note yourself, haha! Yes that's true, I got pwned by checkuser. But I've had a long, productive history here on Wikisource as well as on Wikipedia, and I've got every right to cast a vote in favor of Wikidrama. Chutznik (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Provisional ban of the person who most recently edited as Longfellow

FYI - Wikisource:Scriptorium#Provisional_ban_of_the_person_who_most_recently_edited_as_Longfellow, JeepdaySock (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

I have blocked Ottava Rima for 24 hours in an attempt to uphold the civil, collegial atmosphere expected at this site. As it is extremely unusual for anyone to block a good faith contributor here, and as Ottava Rima considers me involved (which I probably am now... but Ottava has a long history of rendering 'involved' anyone who challenges his behaviour, by attacking them), I encourage you all to review my actions. Hesperian 06:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning diffs: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Hesperian 07:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment at the third diff was also questioned, my reply appears at the user's talk [12] cygnis insignis 08:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a one day block is acceptable here, though I think that in this case it should have been done by a third party admin, to demonstrate community consensus. --Eliyak T·C 16:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I also think a one-day block is acceptable, but then Ottava probably considers me involved too. Though I don't believe Hesperian was wrong to place the block himself, especially given other warnings from Cygnis Insignis, perhaps it would have been better to get an outside opinion. Then again, Ottava would have kicked up the same fuss whoever did it (they'd become "involved" as soon as they cautioned him). However, listing here was a good idea once challenged. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The block enacted the community's clear consensus on these matters, warned then blocked in complete accordance with the relevant document. There was an outside opinion, I warned I would do the same if the user didn't desist. cygnis insignis 17:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant if an outsider performed the block. By as I said, I'm not unhappy with Hesperian doing it either. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Who would/could have been an uninvolved admin? Jeepday (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

In my mind, Cyg would have been ideal, just because Hesperian and Ottava were already tangling even before the block warning (and I didn't feel comfortable doing it as I was already labelled as someone without a clue, and less so after running into Ottova in IRC). But I really I am not complaining about anything. 9 out 10! I'm not trying to get involved, I'm just defending Hesperian, who, in my mind, was justified in his blocking, against the recriminations that seem to be flying in this place today. :-) Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other then Ottava Rima, and our standard disagreements about one thing or another I am not seeing a problem here. Block appears appropriate, and the discussion at an end. Jeepday (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. So you block someone who's annoyed at the manner in which CheckUsers and Bureaucrats went about undermining the community. But the guy who steals women's identities? Well he's just fine to continue editing - in fact, it's fine that he's allowed to stand for adminship. Ottava's annoying and needs to shut up to let other people get a word in, but ffs, where are your priorities?120.19.160.139 23:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ottava editing by IP, during a block? Jeepday (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't seem likely. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My priorities are for preventing ongoing disruption first, and preventing potential future disruption of someone who hasn't edited for ten days, later. I have every intention of starting a community discussion on whether Poetlister should be banned, but there's no rush for that, and I'd rather wait until tempers have cooled and we've all regained some perspective. Hesperian 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It should go without saying that suppressing political dissent is not a valid reason for a block.24.18.132.13 04:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, so why mention it? cygnis insignis 04:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, isn't there sort of a conflict of interest in you reviewing one another's blocks? It seems you have been friends for a long time.[13][14][15]24.18.132.13 05:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Any admin could repeal the block, and I am sure Hesperian would not lower himself to participating in a "block war." Point is, no admins beside cygnis have repealed the block either. So if cygnis is wrong for backing the block, all participating admins are as well. WS is notable for appointing admins relatively easily (which is what got us here!) so don't think there is some kind of admin cabal. WS is a very open community, but one that places a high value on respectfulness and civility. --Eliyak T·C 05:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian and I have an extensive history of collaboration, that is hardly a secret, our talk pages here reveal that we are able discuss and review each others contribs and actions objectively. We do so openly, with transparency, and are both willing to reviewed by others. Hesperian opened this section, so what is the basis for a spurious claim of COI. Don't be cute, use your login (if you able to and have something valid to contribute). cygnis insignis 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The civility and the ability of this community to continue to work together after a disagreement is something that we try work hard to foster. We have all learnt that we should back off on a conversation if the emotion is running wild, not to continue at that moment. The fact is that Ottava was warned, and more than once, and chose to disregard and to continue in the same manner. Solely because they so wished? Alexander Pope reflected on that in 1711. Personally I wouldn't have blocked, though I have absolutely no issue with Hesperian blocking nor the review and support of Cygnis, be they have a friendship and vested interest or they serenade each other in Venice. To any WSian it is no bloody enlightment. They individually have solid reputations at WS, and understand WS, and that alone is sufficient for me to respect both their decisions. If I have concerns, the WS way is to discuss it with them. Hell, Cygnis and I stand toe-to-toe occasionally and both of us have learnt to back off and to breathe, not to duke it out.

To the IP contributors, I will read your comments and the value of your opinion, and I can understand that you like the anonymity to throw barbed comments, however, you will need to note that for me it gets less respect than if you put your name to your voice.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: My name is Timothy Usher, and I live in Seattle, Washington. That makes me, for now, the least anonymous person in this thread.24.18.132.13 05:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat in the ring and support the block. I wouldn't have blocked him, as I've clashed with him on Commons and don't feel at ease using my admin powers on him, but see no need to unblock him, either.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have applied the block had I been present. Hesperian did exactly the right thing, issued a short term (1 Day) block appropriately after several warnings, then posted here for review. Jeepday (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeepday, you accused me of sock puppetry above without any evidence. Do you not understand that is a violation of civility standards? I find it odd how people are so quick to want to block me while I have been 100% polite and civil and yet they have blatantly crossed the line. Wikisource does not have blocks for what Hesperian claimed for a reason, and that is because of how easy they are to abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block 24.18.132.13

24.18.132.13 (talk • contribs) has been blocked by me for 24 hours for what I consider intimidating behaviour at WS:S. In the proposal by Hesperian, I added my contribution with a warning that unless his style of addressing people wasn't modified that the debate would be continued without his contribution. A 24 hour block will see whether the user returns with more helpful and positive contributions. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Resignation

Not long after I became an admin, real life issues came up, and I don't really have enough time to edit anymore. I have asked for my administrator rights to be removed at meta. I thank the community for allowing me to serve. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you have been able to do with the time you've had. Thank you for your work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Heartily agree, hope that the life issues give you time for some fun back here. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Longfellow

I am not much of a behind the scenes kind of guy, so wanted to check on something. I left a supportive note at User talk:Longfellow and I was wondering if anyone had email contact with Longfellow, who has not edited in sometime. Jeepday (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have received an email from him recently, but I cannot really say that I am corresponding with him at the moment. I don't think he will show up on-wiki here any time soon, but that is just my interpretation of his general style. rather than any special knowledge.--BirgitteSB 00:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have received three emails directly to my gmail account (well memory says three). One about edits on site, and one about the recent imposition of a one day ban with some commentary, and one that BirgitteSB mentioned. My take is that he is waiting to see what Hesperian is going to propose. While Longfellow isn't editing, I would say that their interest in undertakings is still present. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They claim to be a WSian definately, but they have never taken part in the discussions over their actions in the past.--BirgitteSB 04:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had two emails, I am getting the impression that part of WS they user is most interested in does not involve improving and maintaining the library. Jeepday (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

And now a third User_talk:Longfellow#eMail, Jeepday (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked this account. Providing a list of all WMF accounts they created was a requirement made of them in 2008. I personally believe they should be provisionally banned till the update that list, but I will not stand for them to involve us in their efforts create sdifferent characters across WMF sites. They can continue the conversation using their active WM account if they so desire. But as they have moved on to a new one elsewhere, Longfellow is done.--BirgitteSB 05:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

  Longfellow has protested the block. The text is at User talk:Longfellow. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two weeks later Longfellow has not elected to use his talk page for communicating. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

With unnecessary/shock images

Admins may find it useful to add discovered images to Mediawiki:Bad image list, noting that colons are required in filenames if files are not to be seen in saved file. — billinghurst sDrewth

Should the page MediaWiki:Bad image list, be protected so only admins can change it? Related; I have suggested a name change at w:MediaWiki talk:Bad image list, from "Bad image list" to "Shock image list". Jeepday (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the MediaWiki: namespace is restricted to admins by default. Hesperian 12:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine too, to the point that any file listed in Special:AllMessages is protected. For this case, you can see bad image file listed here, so it is not a local decision to rename, it would seem to be a Mediawiki application change. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, non-admin account cannot edit the page. JeepdaySock (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Started a bugzilla discussion (protest?) bugzilla:26826 - Ability to block categories of images from Commons to look to a more effective solution to our serial pest. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Abuse

Please see

• Special:Contributions/195.230.115.250
• Special:Contributions/90.214.174.184

for violations made to other User's pages & general nonsense. George Orwell III (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done second seems a bit more persistent, so I deleted the junk & put a 1 day block there. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Special:Contributions/86.60.63.92 already blocked but not reverted -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Special:Contributions/In sOURCE eDITOR - already blocked, not reverted, obscene images. George Orwell III (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

    hid the edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Would an admin please change the level of protection on my user page from full to semi protection. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

done - welcome home. — George Orwell III (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross ns redirects

Parking here in case someone can get to them before me in the next xxx hours. Special:Contributions/Scott_Illini has put in cross namespace redirects for Country to Portal:Country. Will need to tidy them up, and let the contributor know. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 09:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for blocking a vandal user

Can someone please block a new user Armenian12 (http://hy.wikisource.org/wiki/%D5%84%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%B6%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%AB%D6%81:Armenian12) from armenian wikisource? The only activity of the user was deleting the armenian texts and putting a propaganda text in english (history of his activity) Վազգեն (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The English Wikisource isn't the appropriate place for this; there should be some page on the Armenian Wikisource where this can be reported.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We only have the ability to administer the English language Wikisource. All the different languages have separate governance. However if the Armenian Wikisource does not have active admins, a steward would be best able to help you. You could speak with one about your issue in the steward's chat room (web gateway). Or post a notice at the m:Stewards' noticeboard.--BirgitteSB 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious disappearance of an edit history entry

While searching for information, I looked up this author’s page and recognized my additions of the related PSM articles, done sometimes last summer. But, when I looked at the "View history", my name was missing. What was I doing wrong? — Ineuw talk 04:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone who doe a lot of tidying of author pages merged content from of the duplicated author pages that you created, at what is now a redirect. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cygnis Insignis. I am really sorry about the duplications. I’ve researched every one before adding an author, and spent a lot of time and effort on my contributions on the list. Were there many duplicates? Is there a way to know which were duplicated? I just want look at how I missed them, and avoid such issues in the future.— Ineuw talk 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware of any reasonable means to identify duplicates. When I don't have full names, then I always do a search "Author:<surname>" (ensure that Author: ns is in your default searches). If you have your best to identify the author and for an existing page, then that is all that we ask, and if we end up with a duplicate <shrug> so be it. We will fix it in time, takes a small amount of time, we'll cope, no fuss. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns.— Ineuw talk 03:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Began to check the PSM authors’ Wikipedia links as intended, and found another issue. Some matters which I didn’t pursue at the time of the pages’ creations, (Summer 2010), have now triggered my memory. I have taken the wrong approach with the links then, and now they came back to bite me. In fairness to all, I decided to continue this topic in the Scriptorium. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Somethin' new

A heads up... someone please take a closer look at a recent vandal's attempted exploits

• http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=2420025

I don't know what that was going to be but it is full of URLs & IP addresses. —

Just squashed a second attempt - hid the revision text as a precaution. Seems to be looking for what ranges/IPs are currently blocked ? — George Orwell III (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=2420810
• http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&oldid=2418152

GO3, it is the vandal from daktel, now using an addresses from myvzw.com (their telephone), and they are showing us how successful a vandal they are and their cleverness. We just keep shutting them out and undo. We can softblock slabs, and 72.101.0.0/16 and 75.221.0.0/16 are clear if we need to, and we can simply look to expand if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Was that all? All I saw was some list or something being generated using toolserver.org and freaked out. When I looked at it even closer, it had more stuff that I didn't know what would happen if I left it around. Sorry for the over-reaction - I honestly figured better safe than sorry. — George Orwell III (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, wouldn't fuss it, like most graffiti best to just cover it up and send it away, rather than let their puerile brag stand. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Not sure what to make of this maneuver

• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ballsmahoney365

Looks like someone created an account to create a back-up user-name for when the account gets banned so he can usurp & back-date the 2nd account for the next ban? — George Orwell III (talk) 06:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is a duplicate or copycat of that manoeuvre that would be good to be traced:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:!_ari-ari-ari_!&oldid=2784083

ResScholar (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is an edit from somewhere in Peru, on an account that had edited jaWP at some point. Looks more clueless rather than sinister. Should be fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism spree

User:Sdaufoiagewqhseudh is spraying recent pages with spurious headers and has started to undo reverts. Can someone please block so that we can tidy up? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Done --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI: edits to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template

I have made a series of edits to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template in the past couple of days.

1. Link to Help:Page Status
2. To add context specific link to tool http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/checker/?db=enwikisource_p

As background, this is the template that is the design point for the Index: namespace pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User: 208.93.181.72

Just a heads-up. The above user's only edits have all been to add spurious content to various Gilbert and Sullivan operas. All changes have been reverted or sdeleted (thanks Hesperian). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue Box

Here, on the right corner of the blue box, the text reads: "related portals: Bilateral documents.". I went to {{header}} and could not find how to change it so that a period does not follow does not automatically "insert" when this template is used. I do realize that I am an anon so I won't be able to change the template, so I am asking someone more knowledgeable (also) to change it, thanks in advance.205.206.8.197 01:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The terminating period is not part of the link. A work/page can belong to multiple portals which display separated by a comma, so they are terminated by a period. What is the issue? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Advice please: Wiping Outlines of European History

Following Tannertsf's request on Scriptorium that Index:Outlines of European History.djvu be wiped so his class can work on it, I asked the uploader and majority contributor, Blurpeace, who has agreed that it is OK. There are only a few pages, so it is not a practical problem to do so. However, I can't find any sort of precedent from which to work, so I'd like to know if it is all right to go ahead. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought that there would be a precedent, nor if we did it that we would want it to be seen as a precedent. II don't like the idea of losing content for the purposes of an exercise, especially without knowing the benefit that there is to the community. That said, if we are only blanking the pages of a moribund work (not deleting), then there is no loss, as long as we are able to recover the work, and to know when we could do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done it now. I will check back in a few months and undelete the pages if nothing new has been done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted FORENSIC EVALUATION REPORT

I have deleted a document that would seem to have been a report to a court. It seemed a very personal document that I felt we would not want to host. I would appreciate if another admin would take a look at it review my decision. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any connection with the convicted terrorist sympathizer Abdullah al-Muhajir? :-þ

I wouldn't think you would, so what exactly is the problem here again? -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I find a veiled but centered accusation that anyone who has a problem with this is a terrorist sympathizer to be way over the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find the tongue-out absurdity of raising such a implausible point to begin with, then I don't know what more I can do to make that more clear for you.

The issue goes toward U.S. law and evidence submitted during court proceedings that ultimately played a role in securing a Federal conviction. I believe there is no jeopardy in hosting such a document and, so far, the only reason I can see for its deletion is based within matters of subjective taste. In the absence of a better explanation than just being a "very personal document", I thought contrasting it with a just-as-moot rationale would move things along a bit faster was all. Sorry if it came off as anything otherwise. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you just playing the troll here? :-þ

It is not Wikisource's place to hold private documents about random federal cases, particularly ones that are intrusive to the privacy of the person.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can point me to that policy or maybe previous instances where subjective determinations trumped existing guidelines and the like, it would be much appreciated. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any policy which prohibits such a document. Although personal, its subject is notable, could be considered historical, acts to accompany en.wp article as a source. I don't feel very strongly opposed, but rather dislike the idea of censorship. - Theornamentalist (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have recovered the document (added header and the provided links), though that recovery not about whether we should or should not host the work, it is more to allow this to follow our due process. It wasn't clearly evident that there was any convicted terrorist and , and I just saw a submitted report [added/edited] by the same name as the psychologist, I wrongly assumed that they had just created and added it. I will let someone work out the licence that is going to be applied to the document. The deletion was not anything about censorship and I reject that statement without any evidence that was my purpose. To the general commentary, that it is a document of the court by an expert witness and available to the public does not explain how it automatically is it into the public domain under one of our licences. It is not an edict of government, nor a work or a US public servant, so the best that we could say is that it is not a literary work or one of the creative mind, hence it is not subject to copyright. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look to see if I can find anything for it. I apologize, I did not mean to accuse you of censorship, rather, its deletion in principle I felt could be construed as censorship, and the result of the (inevitable) subjectivity of WWI. It certainly is a fringe case, and I admit to not thinking much about the other points you've made regarding license and such, I just disagreed where you reasoned that it was personal and thus not within our scope. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

enWS being used to circumvent block

SchoolcraftT appears to be trying to use enWS to circumvent an indefinite block on Commons commons:User talk:SchoolcraftT as a way to get images uploaded to commons through the transwiki process. I'm not sure of the appropriate processes in this situation. Any ideas? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion separately from Bees' observations. I began a polite line of questioning on the User's talkpage in hopes of drawing out what exactly is going on with the images in question, if not the Commons ban itself. Not a very positive tone in his/her reply so far.

Other than that, I'm hoping a more expierenced admin can at least get us past the checkuser and/or verification stuff before doing anything specific or going any further in response to this matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar conversation in IRC where there was a request to move pages, yet when it is suggested that they uploaded them directly then there was utter silence. Our practice has been to migrate works to Commons where they fit within C's scope and are required as part of our works , or some of the images that ended up here and have some value to move to Commons. Nothing more. One that I deleted had had multiple different versions. I will not be moving them, and if they remain I will be deleting them as out of scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?rights=1&user=SchoolcraftT — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I just whacked 'em all. After reviewing the ongoing nonsense on WP and Commons again in closer detail, this User is just buying time by not being forthcoming, etc. He/she does this to poke and prod the various possible avenues for ultimately getting what he/she wants, policy, copyrights and etiquette be damned. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons admins notified via their noticeboard and we can let them manage it. I am not planning on wasting more effort on this, if pushed, I would just suggest a block, at this point identifying the act and managing seems sufficient. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Though previous behaviour indicates sockpuppeting may soon follow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though it will be at Commons, as that behaviour here would stand out like dog's balls (to euphemate). If Commons CU requests actions, we would likely oblige.— billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur, support block if same or simular images begin appearing here related to person, regardless of sock ID. JeepdaySock (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I applied an infinite block to the account SchoolcraftT (talk • contribs), and disabled email and talk access. I also a similar block to the ip User:184.19.64.215 for a single day. Change any of that if it helps. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Following a request in IRC, I have modified the block to allow talk page and email. Please see User talk:SchoolcraftT#Unblocked talk page, and opened mail per request. Note that user is on a dynamic IP address, though with a known range. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Special Delete

Please check my edits at 16:15 & 16:16 today, delete them and the IP edits completely. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Done thanks JeepdaySock (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

spam urls

having a brain fart... can't recall where to add urls being spammed into articles. Need to add:

• http://doggroomingboutique.com

thanks -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Done. To MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Works protected in 2006 like The Gates of Somnauth & bits

Back in 2006 there were quite a number of historically significant political speeches that were contributed, progressed to 75% textquality, then fully sysop locked and the template {{locked}} added to the works. While undertaking various cleanups over time to update the headers, they have not been bot'able due to the protection. In reflection, I am wondering why we have them protected compared to our contemporary protection approach. Initially, I think that we should have a general review of works that are marked locked to see whether the particular works should be so marked when they are not proofread twice, and now cannot be by anyone but an admin. Then it is time that we did a root and branch review of our protection approach and get that reflected in our Wikisource:Protection policy — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Concur. JeepdaySock (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting autopatroller right

Hey, I used to be an admin, but Real Life reared it's ugly head and I dropped off the face of the earth, wiki-wise. I'm semi-back, not enough to warrant asking for my admin bit back, but enough that I'd like to go ahead and get the autopatroller flag so nobody has to go back and double-check my edits. I've got 1600+ edits, so I'd imagine I meet any requirements. :) EVula // talk // 00:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Woohoo. Done with pleasure. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. I'm hoping that life will allow me to actually come back here more regularly now. EVula // talk // 00:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Another request for autopatroller rights

Hi,

Echoing EVula's request, I also used to be an admin about 5 years back before RL intervened. I'm back, but want to reacquaint myself with things before asking to be admin again. However, I plan on picking up some of the tasks I used to work on, like monitoring the orphaned pages, so will be making lots of edits (as can be seen by my activities today). If I can get the autopattoller flag, it should save other people a lot of work. :) Thanks. Illy (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Done by Theornamentalist 23:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Autopatroller request

Hi, I've been tinkering here for a while, and think I have a good feel for how things are done. My most complete work is 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Oregon, and I'm working on Memoirs of Henry Villard/Volume 2/Book 8 among other things (generally listed on my user page). I try to ask questions and stay in touch occasionally at the Scriptorium, more frequently on the #wikisource IRC channel. OK? -Pete (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the logs you were granted autopatroller rights by Spangineer on 26 July 2010.[16] Hesperian 00:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Well, how about double-autopatroller then? ;) Sorry for the redundant request. -Pete (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked User:Suprashoesforcheap

I've blocked User:Suprashoesforcheap indefinitely. Their talk page was SEO spam leading to a site I've added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I made it indefinite but left account creation open, as the username is inappropriate (at least as used.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Our mobile configuration needs discussion and implementation

I have been pointed to m:Mobile Projects/Mobile Gateway and there are some matters here that we need to elicit discussion and undertake some configuration. It would be useful if there are any mobile users among our admins who could lead that discussion and implementation. 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

frWS already has a mobile main page set up: http://fr.m.wikisource.org. For example, the Nouveautés section uses id="mf-nouveautés". Presumably we can just throw in a few container divs where we want them. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed Maximillion Pegasus' "abuse filter editor" access right because of inactivity.

Just a note that I removed Maximillion Pegasus' "abuse filter editor" access right. Max resigned the admin bit back in January and hasn't edited since. I see removal of the abuse filter bit as uncontroversial housekeeping; but after doing so, it occurred to me that there is no provision for this under Wikisource:Restricted access policy, so I figured I had better disclose it here. Hesperian 05:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

User:81.105.181.49

Just a note, this user's only 7 contributions have all had the effect of damaging headers of works, mostly works that are easily accessed from the front page. It does not appear to be an on-going concerted attack, so I don't think an IP block is in order just yet, but continued disruptive editing in spite of a warning would certainly be grounds for one. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

New feature in Mediawiki 1.18

Apart from the text added at WS:S, there is also the useful Easily find where you can customize the interface for editing pages in the Mediawiki namespace, and identifying the parts by the addition of ?uselang=qqx to urls. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Generate Book / PDF not working?

I attempted to download http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Was_Thursday/Chapter_I, but the resulting pdf had only the text: (lt) pages index="Chesterton - The Man Who Was Thursday.djvu" from=13 to=32 (gt). The same thing occurred when I tried the book creator. I have not tried any other books.—unsigned comment by 24.86.111.248 (talk) .

Yep. An error with the Collection extension which is noted at oldwikisource:Wikisource:Wishlist and is in bugzilla:21653 awaiting attention. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Crosswiki spammer

Hi everyone. I don't know where else I should ask this, so that's why I'm doing it here.

• Notebook (talk • contribs)

Please block the account above locally for infinity and also delete the pages Notebookdepo and User:Notebook. It's a crosswiki spammer and "Notebook" is a nonsul account (link) - I'm therefore unable to lock it. Thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from Scriptorium - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC))

Done Both pages were identical articles in Turkish about Notebook computers. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Comes from a broad range (/19) so no hard block applied; there are some indirect accounts but nothing that would have an editing effect if we had to put a hard block on for a couple of weeks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

One more nonsul account: Viola123 (talk • contribs). [17] Please block this one locally for indef as well (the relevant pages are already deleted). Trijnstel (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Done and looks to be a corrupted server on the net — billinghurst sDrewth 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hi. Could someone please delete User:Mjbmr/vector.js? It's nominated for speedy deletion since 8 August, see also here. Thanks in advance. Trijnstel (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Done - although marked for speedy deletion, it didn't show up in the category. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me or

. . . are we seeing a new type of "vandalism" this week?

I've noticed an uptick in the creation of mainspace pages with little in the way of header information and absolutely no content whatsoever after it.

I've deleted over 2 dozen of these pointless additions to en.WS since Monday or so (see the Deletion log) - leaving the usual 'Welcome & test' on the anonIP's User talk pages.

Anyway, I figure better to say something now in case it matters later in spite of the bloated whitelist used for the majority of patrolling duties currently in place. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be more aligned with me making the header tool the default setting, such that people creating pages get that header in the main ns. Re the bloat patrol list, feel free to trim it as necessary. It is pretty easy to re-add those who reappear. I would be interested if the pages are random pages, or they come from redlinks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

One can say half are possible redlinks from elsewhere & half have no linkage whatsoever, but that is just my recollection without double checking them all. There is no pattern as far as I can tell but I'm no expert in such matters. I've only caught one repetative global IP block [18] this week who wasn't really doing the pointless page creation thing like the bulk of the others.

I'm not inclined to dealing with the static bulk patrol exemption list - I don't believe something like that should exist except in rare circumstances if at all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

So it seems general user "how does this work?". If it is problematic or uncertain, we can turn the gadget default off and see if it makes a difference, or we can just see how we go.

Agreed. That's fine for now. I'd just wanted to note the observation somewhere. I see BeesWax has hit a few more since my last for example. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The bot's functionality preceded our ability to autopatrol, and I would agree that it is not our everyday/everyone patrol option. I generally add there where we have an account working well on one book though I don't know how well they would work in the broader namespaces, such that it is a specific half-way measure. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Its the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. Sooner or later somebody will have an unfortunate turn of circumstance or events where this practice will play in a bad light and ultimately that will be the end of the practice. Otherwise, it's typically too hard to overturn such things after the moment in time has come & gone where it actually became a leftover relic from the previous setup/system. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Academic Resource Credibility

My online university(Ashford)does not recognize Wikipedia as credible source. Is there any University that does? Is there any effort being made towards resolving this matter.

It is good that your university does not recognise Wikipedia as a credible source. Wikipedia is a tertiary source - the same as any encyclopaedia. You should be looking for and working with primary sources. Some of those primary sources are here on Wikisource, others are elsewhere on the net, and still others are in printed materials. Use the Wikipedia articles as "jumping off" points. The external links, references and bibliographies at the end of the articles are all useful.

In answer to your specific questions: 1) No credible university will accept Wikipedia citations; 2) Because Wikipedia is a tertiary source, there is no effort that can be made to cause universities to accept it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple issues regarding User:William Maury Morris II

The following discussion is closed.

I have become aware of three issues regarding User:William Maury Morris II's behaviour and account security. I have outlined why this is serious at his talk page, and am bringing it here for community input. Disclosed alternate accounts of this user are: User:William Maury Morris (inactive since 2010 due to lost password), User:Brother Officer (active) and User:Maury (inactive since 2006).

• Firstly, and most seriously, he posted personal details about a fellow editor. I have had this information removed and oversighted by a steward.

• Secondly, he has admitted that he has disclosed his account password to others and permits them to operate his account, though it is unknown which accounts he has opened in this way. This appears to be against Wikisource:Blocking policy#Public accounts and Meta:Terms of use#5. Password_Security.

• Thirdly, User:Brother Officer, a disclosed alternate account, has been proofreading and validating the same Page: pages as User:William Maury Morris II, which would appear to violate WS:ALT (only a draft), as a technical restriction is being circumvented by alternate accounts.

The first and second points were respectively precipitated and revealed by a discussion on the third one, which he has since been moved here. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is a long discussion at User_talk:William_Maury_Morris_II#Inappropriate_behaviour, which should be read when considering the above. Jeepday (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I may have a conflict of interest, having worked on Southern Historical Society Papers with William Maury Morris II. However, in working on that periodical, I have noticed a difference in style between his edits and those of Brother Officer, so I believe his explanation on that point. I agree with Inductiveload that the outing is the most significant issue but I do not know what form that took. From what I can see, I don't think he intended harassment as defined in the Wikipedia policy. In this case, I would suggest the equivalent of a police caution, rather than any form of blocking. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment [Personal/Admin] I regularly have this user/these users on my talk page, and I had always (as|pre)sumed that there was familial connections, and not the same person, though I will admit that I never looked too hard, though never had concerns to go and look. While the work that they are doing has no personal interest to me, I do appreciate the work that they are doing and I find their continued efforts commendable, and I occasionally assist on some of their pages.
  There has been wrongs done here, but nothing that I consider warranting remedial sanctions. In reading the user talk page, I sense contrition, and can understand how some of the actions came about from a person or group of people solely focusing on content and not the bureaucracy nor our politics; plus maybe a reaction that was unwise, though understand that sometimes circumstance and poor judgement grabs us all at times. I would hope that an apology could be given, and therefore accepted, that there are some lessons learnt, and maybe a reflection on the clarity on our processes. Conditions? Yes, one user per account. Never validate your own proofreading. Same conditions that apply to us all!
  Putting words into Adam's mouth, and speaking for me, I am comfortable to continue supporting the users, and encourage them to continue to ask questions where there is uncertainty. That said, Wikisource:Scriptorium should not be seen as a scary space, and I would always continue to encourage all users to post there with their questions, as we all learn something, even if it is that our help pages need more work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment [Checkuser] I have checked the SUL/IP data and have provided a concise, non-identifying report to one of the bureaucrats, and one of the checkusers, and kept a reference in case they request full copies. [Long story, but not all email addresses to hand, though I have pinged the remaining 'crats]. In my opinion, and as expressed to 'crat, there is no extra story showing in the data than has been explained here and on WMMII's pages. I recuse from any decision-making on this matter, especially having worked with both sides of the interaction. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• For accuracy, I have made a correction on my Talk page with regard to my 21 January 2012 (14:21) posting. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment [As reporter] I agree broadly with what has been said here so far in that I do not believe these actions merit serious sanctions to be levied against WMMII. He has shown remorse, he was under real-life stress (which makes the actions somewhat understandable without excusing them), he was not aware of the specific policy/guidelines/whatever-it-is of Wikisource or the wider WMF. There was also no time for a caution between the revelation of the account issues and the "outing" (name and personal email), which I expect would have calmed matters a little. That said, the posting of details publicly was presumably intended as a retort of sorts, which is why I brought it here rather than administering a quiet "you can't do that, you know". I would be satisfied in knowing that WMMII now realises the severity of what happened, and would never do anything of the sort again. I certainly see no benefit in removing the ability to contribute, as this could only harm the project. Of course, a repeat of this kind of thing will not be well received.
• I do, however, request both WMMII and Londonjackbooks to not engage in any more arguments of this kind at Wikisource. If any user does feel wronged or harassed, they can always ask another user privately for assistance before it starts getting ugly. Additionally, no user should email another through the site's email function if that other does not wish to be contacted in this way. If anyone feels another user is abusing the facility, they should approach an administrator.
• I am highly appreciative of the work which has been done by the WMMII and those editing under the account, I have never seen any other cause for alarm from them before now and I would welcome the others into the WS community under their own user names if they so wish.
• I echo Billinghurst in inviting any user to ask questions in any forum here. The help pages do need work, and the best way to find out where need improvement is finding out where people get stuck! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The email exchanges (which I have retained) were not argumentative, and Mr. Morris never gave any indication of being/feeling harassed in the emails. If anything, the "tone" of the emails was similar to the exchanges made between Mr. Morris and myself located in the revision history (which I have also documented) of Mr. Morris' Talk page. I do not wish to pursue this matter further, and only wish the best for Mr. Morris and his family. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolution

Other then reading the varies posts, I have been uninvolved in the issue. The general appearance is that WMMII intended no harm, and was not aware of committing any transgressions against the community expectation. WMMII has explained fully his actions in question and his continued desire to remain with WS. [19]. For the 3 issues I believe the community is suggesting;

1. Outing personal details; Has been removed by a steward, the victim is not interested in pursuing, and WMMII has promised to not repeat simular actions, no one in the community is pursuing any action. I think we can leave it as lesson learned, don't do it again.

2. Multiple people using a single ID; Everyone is in agreement, that it will not occur again.

3. Alternate account; (complicated by multiple users on one account) "Never validate your own proofreading". Review Wikisource:Alternate accounts consider how multiple accounts fit into the expectation, and make appropriate choices on the accounts to include use of Alternate account notification

In closing: The community values the contributions of all involved, and looks forward to a long and happy future together on the project. The forums Wikisource:Scriptorium and Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard are available and should be used to solicit community involvement. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if I am supposed to say anything here but I feel that I should and especially from this statement above, " I would hope that an apology could be given, and therefore accepted, that there are some lessons learnt, and maybe a reflection on the clarity on our processes. Conditions? Yes, one user per account. Never validate your own proofreading. Same conditions that apply to us all!"

I sincerely do apologize to everyone on Wikisource. I have learned of the wrongs that I have done and I regret them. There are many good people here and I have enjoyed communicating and working with them. It's like a family especially as years pass. I always thought I had to show a personal e-mail in case I got locked out as in the past. That being locked out cost me a lot of edits that I have prided myself on accomplishing. When my wiki e-mail was used not by an administrator or someone for important wiki messages I felt intruded upon by a user but maintained friendliness knowing, or believing that if I did not maintain a friendliness with the user (only one wrote to me) that the user could become upset and cause me problems. It has happened throughout the many years I have been on internet harkening back to around, at least 1993 where I placed a book on internet. I refer to the book I placed on wikisource, by Dabney Herndon Maury which links back to the 1993 work when everything had to be in ascii. Anyhow email became an issue for me because my email at that time, in a university, was used against me. I hold no grudges, no need to and I am not inclined to be that way no matter what happens. However, I don't like to be "followed" by someone who contacted me through what I believed was a secure email used only by administrators, to get back an account if the password was forgotten. That is what bothered me the most. I did not know that anyone could use my email for personal conversations. There were no arguments in them but there were statements I disagreed with yet said nothing about them. So, I though that had finally stopped. Wrong -- my user page became what I felt like was about things that should not be there for the world to see aside from the fact that I wanted to keep my user page looking as positive and as professional as possible. For some reason that could not be and was highly upsetting to me to have conversations before the world. Now I really know the value of an alias, as I dislike using an alias. The use of an alias is a form of hiding but from whom, for what reason, why do I have to hide my name, I am not ashamed of my name, why should I have to hide it? These were my thoughts. I have posted a lot with my real name and I felt at home amongst friends. I hid as Brother Officer but I added my real name and things were going great. I love the transcription work, the image work, and I have enjoyed the administrators and users with fake and real names. I messed up on the rules but also rules do change. I cite one in specific and that is "sock puppet" changed. I have always felt proud of people who I felt open and honest by using their real name. AdamBMorgan may not be his real name but at least I know his nature and kindness shown towards me working together of the SHSP. Even there I now I know I made mistakes. I am aware of many mistakes with many people aside from this most recent situation blowing up on me and on others who have to deal with this annoying situation. Thus I apologize to everyone. I feel as though I have harmed everyone in one form or another equally and I cannot erase that although I wish to God this situation never happened and not because I fear being cast outside of wikisource -- that would hurt but some wrongs deserve punishment. I have made many mistakes - more than you guys have talked about. I fear that I would make many more if I continue. I feel like I am by my own mistakes already an outcast -- carrying the mark of Cain. IT won't come off, I can't get it off within my own self. It's shame. I feel shame. I feel regretful and I feel shame and not because of what any others wrote, it is inside of me. You see, for someone like me my name is among the most precious things I have and now I have brought shame upon it which goes deep inside of me and that is aside of what and part of what I have done to others who have been like family. I cannot erase the shame, I cannot apologize enough, I cannot undo the wrongs I have done to everyone -- to "everyone", every good person working so hard for a better world for others far into the future. I apologise for writing so much. Even my screen is grey thanks to inductiveload. I have done so much to so many I can't keep doing it. Sonja, I especially apologise to you and you did -nothing- wrong and you create works of beauty - something this world needs more of.--Maury (—William Maury Morris II ^Talk 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mate, we need NO shame, we are all humans and we make mistakes, and expecting differently would be to deny our humanity. This is our Wikisource family, and long we be able to maintain our ability to resolve matters by consideration of others. It warms the cockles of the heart to see the ability of all to give a little for the global good. Nice! Very nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to write once again in this area as I do not know if this is forbidden. Is it? Anyway, something keeps bothering me from a statement above. The statement is, in part, "..he has admitted that he has disclosed his account password to others and permits them to operate his account.." Now, I admitted then and now I allowed my sons to use my account to roam internet but I have never stated nor have I ever given out my account "password" to anyone. I cannot recall ever, in decades of internet, of "giving out" any "account password". It is something I just do not do. The computer was already on so no password was needed in that situation. I do still regret that entire situation. Thank you billinghurst for the very kind words regarding shame. I was very upset at that time and as for the shame, it still resides within me but I have been working that out and continuing to contribute. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is ok to write here, Thank you for clarifying the password situation. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Could a bureaucrat review, make recommendations, and archive? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to recommend out of this, except maybe that we resolve all our concerns in as mature and collegial a manner as we have this one. Certainly there is no reason for sanctions. Hesperian 22:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed.