Wikisource

Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2009

< Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard‎ | Archives
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Checkuser notification

This section is used to publicly note checkuser actions (see Restricted access policy).

Misc checks which turned up nothing

I checked an IP used by a cross wiki vandal; no results. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked an IP used by a cross wiki vandal; no results. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I checked a very large IP range used by a cross wiki vandal; no results. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheesecracker

Cheesecracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
Slim Slam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

user:Slim Slam was the only account that turned up in the net on a search on IPs used by Cheesecracker. I've indef blocked Slim Slam. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jan Van Bunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
This account operated from the same IP address, 63.146.2.97. I blocked the the account permanently and address for a month. —Pathoschild 07:05:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Will_O'Locksley

Will_O'Locksley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
This is the same spam as Cheesecracker. <sigh> -- billinghurst (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
also seems to previously been Buxton Bildersplut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) and Volapuke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) -- billinghurst (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please also check the creator of the article, Wikihew. I find it suspicious that the article was vandalised just a few hours after it was deleted [1]. Yann (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikihew is unrelated. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Will_O'Locksley = 66.7.217.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) - blocked.
John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Log

Users Results
Moog Frog Crosswiki vandal; operated from 147.202.121.194, a probable web proxy hosted by LogicWeb. I globally blocked 147.202.104.0/21 and 147.202.112.0/20. —Pathoschild 07:28:34, 01 March 2009 (UTC)
Checked second user, same range. —Pathoschild 08:34:29, 01 March 2009 (UTC)
We have had the exact same issues with this guy at Wikiquote. You may wish to indef block these accounts: wikiquote:category:Suspected Wikiquote sockpuppets of Bubbaloo. Cirt (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see also Report at Meta. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Bogus_Bling Crosswiki vandal; operated from 91.193.130.41. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
91.193.128.0/22 is registered to Inline Internet Online Dienste, a web hosting company. This is most likely a web proxy. —Pathoschild 07:08:17, 05 March 2009 (UTC)
(hidden) Self-evident abuse. IP linked with a crosswiki vandal, operating from Italy. Apparently not an open or web proxy. —Pathoschild 00:51:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
HAGGBULOX.Mike.lifeguard Checked by steward Mardetanha. Known crosswiki vandal, related to a previously-checked vandal here; 193.200.150.125 blocked globally. —Pathoschild 23:47:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Elsie Leeson Please check, probably related a previously-checked vandal —Billinghurst
Matches "Oklahoma, aardvark", who made the same edit in February. No apparent match with "Will O'Locksley", but the latter uses proxies. —Pathoschild 22:13:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The Other Side The Other Side‎‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) -- billinghurst (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Done; used a web proxy on 115.124.104.0/22; globally blocked. —Pathoschild 19:33:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Doop the Froop

84.45.219.185

ThomasV notes that the address sent him a password email soon after the account vandalized. They don't seem to be related, though I've globally blocked 76.76.96.0/19 again. When I have time I'll scrape the proxy blocks from the logs and put together a proxy database to let us know when global proxy blocks are about to expire. —Pathoschild 10:06:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hammerer of Cows Hammerer of Cows‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) —Billinghurst
Crosswiki vandal. Blocked 85.17.0.0/16 as a web host. —Pathoschild 18:54:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
76.252.0.0/16 IP matched to crosswiki vandal on enwiki and usabilitywiki; one possible match on this wiki (not blocked). —Pathoschild 22:59:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
76.247.156.0/22 IP matched to crosswiki vandal on enwiki; no matches on this wiki. —Pathoschild 06:36:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Jonah Pier Musto Sr. Jonah Pier Musto Sr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) also previously blocked Jonah Musto Sr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) —billinghurst (talk)
Globally locked one user (part of a crosswiki vandalism pattern), and matched another blocked user. A few other users of questionable productivity on other wikis used this range, but likely not related. —Pathoschild 06:36:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
81.106.203.205 (blocked) believe aligned with User:Joshua Slanders -- billinghurst (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? The user you linked to doesn't exist. —Pathoschild 16:43:25, 07 May 2009 (UTC)
Try User:JoshuaSlanders --BirgitteSB 20:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think checkuser is needed here. Both edit the same pages, remove footnotes and [inline notes], ignore the edit summary box, occasionally remove newlines, and change the spelling of names in exactly the same way (compare 81.106.203.205's edit to JoshuaSlanders' edit). 81.106.203.205 edited first, stopped for nearly two weeks when JoshuaSlanders was registered, and thereafter often edited the same pages on the same days (compare 81.106.203.205's edit to JoshuaSlanders' edit). —Pathoschild 23:48:17, 07 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, was attempting procedural fairness from a non-circumstantial perspective. If not needed, kewl. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Pathos...
Shanel...
Shanel... 		Accounts related to crosswiki abuse. Accounts operated from web proxies on 208.53.128.0/18, range globally blocked. —Pathoschild 16:39:59, 07 May 2009 (UTC)
76.107.71.2 (blocked for 1 day) Ass pus vandal. #Stewards notified. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
user:Wikimania2010-roleaccount On test.wiki user requested admin and 'crat rights impersonating member of Wikimania team. User created account here, so I checked related accounts - no results. Leinad (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
38.100.42.51‎
67.159.54.26‎
same abuser, different IPs
 billinghurst (talk)

English Wikipedia banned user. No other accounts. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

84.54.138.98

asspus . blocked
stewards notified

billinghurst (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No other accounts. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

58.51.197.246‎
and again 		billinghurst (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No other accounts. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Esper Splink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
and again 		billinghurst (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No other accounts. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Replytomkill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) and Replytomkil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) A password reset for Barras (talk • contribs), but no other results. Globally locked. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Hou Yi (talk • contribs) Concerns about work and sockpuppetry --billinghurst (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
IP addresses (open proxies) checked for bot accounts
  • 81.18.116.66
  • 141.223.237.76
 (CU request)3 accounts blocked, two others left alone -- billinghurst (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Bot created accounts: RicelTvart, ZelbaSleto, RelalLetoc, TrbobAsboc, ZeltrOcace, LigetC4tta, TrocsItacd, Ouc4tRacda, TagetDelge, DelcoAcela Most accounts blocked, details reported to CUs. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I-210 (talk • contribs) and concerns about actions from 75.47.137.31 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) No conclusive results. Logged -- billinghurst (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Epic shiny pink bubble gum wrapper (talk • contribs) crosswiki concerns Other suspicious looking, though inactive accounts identified. Results shared crosswiki -- billinghurst (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
'Til I see some nakedBitc.hesDancin'AroundDrunkTouchin'EachOther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) Grawp. Reported as crosswiki vandal. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mighty Moose

Mighty Moose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
Looks to be our Tinkerbell again. :-( -- billinghurst (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Smog Glue

Smog Glue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
Coincidence with the other components? I doubt it. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Same as [2] and same as all these guys [3]. I suggest block on sight. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Fuzzbo the Great

Fuzzbo the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
And again. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Jan Alex deDuivel

Jan Alex deDuivel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

And again. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Blender Fizz

Blender Fizz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

And again again. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Checked, range matches another account registered 25 February 2009; registered to Marrtin Frankenhauser / InterWeb Media. Apparently a web host (and not a reputable host); probably a web proxy. Please report these ones to #wikimedia-stewards; this account vandalized two other wikis before we noticed. —Pathoschild 07:45:11, 09 April 2009 (UTC)
Would have loved to, however, unless you can suggest a means without IRC software, then that was as good as it was going to get.<shrug> -- billinghurst (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Now enlightened. Thx Jude. -- billinghurst (talk)

Bureaucrats

SUL rename/usurpation requests

Epousesquecido --> Josette

You already have contribs as Josette from SUL autocreation. Do you have a preference to what you would like me to rename that account to? The renaming will break the SUL voodoo so you will have to redo that process after the renaming is all done.--BirgitteSB 06:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't care about those few edits so can you rename that account Josette2 or something like that? Thank you for dealing with this issue for me. - Epousesquecido (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. Be careful to log out before moving between wikis until all the renames are done and you should not have any further lost edits.--BirgitteSB 17:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the move, and the reminder. I will be more careful. I am going to use different browsers (one for each ID) until I'm all moved, keeping things segregated that way. Can you do me a favour and move my old user talk page User_talk:Epousesquecido to User_talk:Josette?? As I'm not an admin, I don't think I can move over redirect (it now has a redirect from J to J2) ... Thanks! (sorry to be such a pain) Josette (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
It is done. But using different browser won't help. If you enter a wiki with the "Jossette" browser where the rename is still pending SUL will automatically register "Josette" there. Which means it will be in the way of the rename and any edits made will be unattributed to your main account.--BirgitteSB 19:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. Per your advice, I will just log out for now. - Josette (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

-> Jack Phoenix

Hi,

I'd like to have the user account User:Jack Phoenix on this wiki renamed because the account has been created by a vandal and has only been used for malicious, bad-faith edits and I'm trying to get my my unified account completed. I'm a MediaWiki developer and have previously used - and still use - the username Roosa (please see my Meta-Wiki userpage and this diff for more information).

You can email me at jack[ at ]countervandalism[ dot ]net, replacing [ at ] with @ and [ dot ] with . if you want to discuss this in further detail.

Thanks in advance! --84.250.43.90 15:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and renamed Jack Phoenix for you.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Wadester16 to User:UpstateNYer

I would like a bureaucrat to change my name from User:Wadester16 to User:UpstateNYer to coincide with name changes at en:wiki, es:wiki, Commons, and Meta. Thanks. Wadester16 21:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.--BirgitteSB 18:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mjquin_id to Mjquinn_id=

Requesting name change from Mjquin_id to Mjquinn_id; changing my unified account across all projects. Mjquin id (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done --BirgitteSB 01:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Other

Speedy deletion

There are a couple of pages that have been nominated for speedy deletion for a very long time now. I generally handle the speedy deletion requests, and I've put these two in the too-hard basket. It would be good if someone else would head over to CAT:SDD and see what can be done about them. Hesperian 03:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • My first impression is that this is a straightforward split of a long article, but if you have doubts about this deletion, perhaps Wikisource:Proposed deletions‎‎ would be a better place for discussing it than here. I do have some concerns that our entire version may be a copyvio. There is no problem with the 17th century original, but the modernization of the language, and other editorial additions are a concern. Eclecticology (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes I kept passing over the pages becasue I was not comfortable deleting them. Some of the text is transcluding from Index:Three Books of Occult Philosophy. This index claims the edition is from 1651 so I don't see any copyright issues at the moment. I have checked against the individual chpaters pages and can't see any difference (I added the pretty capital image for chapter 1). I would therefore be happy to delete these pages now as they are not part of the original structure (this has been mentioned here). Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The pretty picture problem is and has been easily solved, so deleting those two pages for duplication should not be a big issue. The copyright issue comes from using the Esoteric Archives version, and incorporating their editorial changes. Eclecticology (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the two pages in question. Three Books of Occult Philosophy/Book 1 now has the chapters listed which is in keeping with books 2 and 3. I don't really know enough about the copyright issue to pass comment, so I guess the issue can be raised on Wikisource:Possible copyright violations if necessary. Hope thats ok Eclecticology. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Archive?

I see that user:sanbeg (bot) is archiving Wikisource:Scriptorium sections older than 30 days.[5] I also see this page has sections at least 6 months old. I propose requesting an bot archive of this page for any section older then 30 days. Jeepday (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is getting quite long; archiving would be helpful. The bot depends on header levels being used consistently, so that it knows are the major headings to keep on both pages, and which are discussions that should only go on one page. This page isn't quite as well structured as the scriptorium; here, it looks like level 2 headers are sections near the top of the page, and discussions near the bottom. So we'd need to either restructure this page so the script can interpret it properly, or come up with another strategy to detect the sections. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering this is this Admin notice board we should be able to keep the same standard of headings here as at Scriptorium. Is there a published standard we can reference? Jeepday (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no published standard, although there was some discussions on the scriptorium awhile back. The gist of it is that we use level 1 headers for the major sections, so discussions can use level 2 and up. Although some people think that using level 1 sections is messy, there was an agreement that the format shouldn't change unless/until the software (the new section link) can be changed to insert new sections at a different level. So barring that change, as long as the permanent sections are level 1 headings and the rest are reasonably consistent, it should work OK. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed to level 1 headers, and as we have not heard any disagreements, I would say we are ok to set up the auto archive. Jeepday (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like there have been annual archives, so I merged in with 2008. I guess we can keep an eye on this, and see how fast it grows. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Importing collapsible table

Would an admin please be able to import Collapsible table format into WS's MediaWiki:Common.js? As I am growing the information within The Times, there is probably going to be a need for a different look/format. This was suggested to me as something to attempt. Thx. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done ? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
See:
John Vandenberg (chat) 13:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Move The Pirate

Could The Pirate (with subpages) by Frederick Marryat please be moved to The Pirate (Marryat). Walter Scott wrote a work of the same name (reference). Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Done--GrafZahl (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Wikisource:Possible copyright violations

I have done a lot of clean up and closing over at Wikisource:Possible copyright violations but there are some that I don't feel comfortable with closing, having either been too involved in the discussion or not feeling the the discussions have run full circle. Please take this opportunity to jump over and see if you can assist in bring these discussions to closure. Thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag for User:CommonsDelinker?

Just patrolled edits for the bot CommonsDelinker. Is that normal or would we expect that account to have a bot flag? -- billinghurst (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea; Most of our images are going to be PD, so any activity by CommonsDelinker is usually an alert us to admins on Commons doing odd things. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Per an SPI case at enwiki a CheckUser was requested, CU evidence (here) and editing habits confirm that User:33ohmygad is one of many abusive sockpuppets at enwiki. After checking with the SUL utility I figured I would alert you guys that one of the 20+ coounts has registered here and am requesting an indefinite block on the account. Thanks, Stepshep (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:I-210 has been making a number of harassing edits recently, and he obviously knows enough about the Wiki to know better. [6] stands out as a repeated action.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuck a welcome and a test tag on his talk page. We should watch to see what happens, at this point it seems that there is some enmity that has followed here from elsewhere. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Autopatrol User:Cirt

Could someone set User:Cirt's edits to be autopatrolled? There's other people in recent edits who could probably be autopatrolled, but he's certainly got enough history here to qualify.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Prosfilaes (talk • contribs) for the vote of confidence. :) Cirt (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. —Pathoschild 19:21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Pathoschild (talk • contribs). :) Cirt (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello to everyone, I have one question to the admins of the Wikisource. I am admin on the Macedonian Wikipedia and I sometimes edit the Macedonian Wikisource. The Macedonian Wikisource is in bad condition and I decided to improve it, but there is one problem that stops me. In other words, there are no admins there and I want to ask you how can we choose admin there since it is rarely edited. I want to candidate for admin there in order to improve the Macedonian Wikisource. Please inform me, thanks --MacedonianBoy (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If that wiki is too small to have a Request for adminship process, then I believe you could inquire about getting a three-month temporary admin access on that smaller project, at m:Steward requests/Permissions. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I have started fixing that project, I have made new Main Page and if I have the admin rights I will start fixing the categories and the pages. You can see the main page [here], it is based on the English one but I will change it these days. Where I can get full adminship for Wikisource?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Cirt pointed you to the English permissions page, for Macedonian try MK and search for permissions or adminship or stewards in your language. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Update: He is getting some good advice over at m:Talk:Steward_requests/Permissions#Adminship_request_for_Wikisource_on_Macedonian. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)  Done

Vandalism by 131.109.81.223

User:131.109.81.223 had vandalized a few pages yesterday. Nobody noticed until I came along. Are there no bots here watching edits for four letter words?--Matthead (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No bots. Thanks. —Pathoschild 22:11:00, 05 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong, but just for me getting it right: Does "No bots. Thanks" mean "Nope, no bots are active at the moment. Thank you for reverting the vandalism" or "We don't want any bots around here, thank you very much"? I guess the former. --Matthead (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism, definitely helpful when all site users are able to do it. We do have a process in place to patrol and review edits, and the more that the general community catches, the easier that it makes it for all of us. Vandalism is unacceptable, and at the moment, the consensus has been that a bot, isn't necessarily the best means to manage vandalism.
By the way, the use of the word 'gay' is hardly a four letter word, especially when you consider we are dealing often with 18th and 19th century texts, and among these we even see the occasional F word, and C word, courtesy of Mr. Robbie Burns. Pure vandalism and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant "no bots are active and thanks for reverting", although fully automated bots are problematic as Billinghurst mentions. —Pathoschild 04:47:55, 06 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've updated the abuse filter to tag some of these as vandalism; which already caught one during testing, and another today. This should suit our purpose, although it will still require editors to periodically check the tag & revert. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
And for the record, I've updated the abuse filter than Steve added so that it checks "added_lines" for the relevant words, rather than new_wikitext, as this managed to catch one of the source texts on sexuality. I've also changed the tag to "possible vandalism" to be less newbie-snapping. Jude (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Would newbies see the tags? I was assuming tags are like a filter for recent changes - type vandalism in the box, to get a list that could use more scrutiny. So I wasn't too worried about false positives, but it's always good to improve. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It at least shows up in brackets at the end of the relevant line in Special:RecentChanges--which is why I checked it out in the first place, because it a known good user. I'm not sure where-else it shows up, though. Better safe than sorry, I thought. Jude (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks; I wasn't aware of that. I've now changed the internal name back, mostly so we don't proliferate tags just to change the display name, since it seems there no way to delete or rename them, and modified the display to added profanity. That should be an accurate description of what the filter is for the logs. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by 131.109.81.223

User:131.109.81.223 had vandalized a few pages yesterday. Nobody noticed until I came along. Are there no bots here watching edits for four letter words?--Matthead (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No bots. Thanks. —Pathoschild 22:11:00, 05 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong, but just for me getting it right: Does "No bots. Thanks" mean "Nope, no bots are active at the moment. Thank you for reverting the vandalism" or "We don't want any bots around here, thank you very much"? I guess the former. --Matthead (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting the vandalism, definitely helpful when all site users are able to do it. We do have a process in place to patrol and review edits, and the more that the general community catches, the easier that it makes it for all of us. Vandalism is unacceptable, and at the moment, the consensus has been that a bot, isn't necessarily the best means to manage vandalism.
By the way, the use of the word 'gay' is hardly a four letter word, especially when you consider we are dealing often with 18th and 19th century texts, and among these we even see the occasional F word, and C word, courtesy of Mr. Robbie Burns. Pure vandalism and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant "no bots are active and thanks for reverting", although fully automated bots are problematic as Billinghurst mentions. —Pathoschild 04:47:55, 06 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've updated the abuse filter to tag some of these as vandalism; which already caught one during testing, and another today. This should suit our purpose, although it will still require editors to periodically check the tag & revert. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
And for the record, I've updated the abuse filter than Steve added so that it checks "added_lines" for the relevant words, rather than new_wikitext, as this managed to catch one of the source texts on sexuality. I've also changed the tag to "possible vandalism" to be less newbie-snapping. Jude (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Would newbies see the tags? I was assuming tags are like a filter for recent changes - type vandalism in the box, to get a list that could use more scrutiny. So I wasn't too worried about false positives, but it's always good to improve. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It at least shows up in brackets at the end of the relevant line in Special:RecentChanges--which is why I checked it out in the first place, because it a known good user. I'm not sure where-else it shows up, though. Better safe than sorry, I thought. Jude (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks; I wasn't aware of that. I've now changed the internal name back, mostly so we don't proliferate tags just to change the display name, since it seems there no way to delete or rename them, and modified the display to added profanity. That should be an accurate description of what the filter is for the logs. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Announcement message: broken link

The current announcement message

“ The results for Wikimedia's licensing update vote have been announced. View the results here. ”

has a local link, rather than that points to the result. Can we get this fixed promptly or do we put in a soft redirect? -- billinghurst (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

RESOLVED. billinghurst (talk)

String of weird account creations

I am suspicious of all the following accounts. Their creation looks spurious due to their proximity, 10 letters long, 1st and 6th capitalised, and not looking like particular words that would be assigned by a user to themselves. When mentioned to #wikimedia-stewards, they suggested that it be brought here for CU, following a discussion on CU-l. -- billinghurst (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 

              	09:35 . . OuoloBorac (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	08:48 . . LieltZelbo (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	08:36 . . DelboCorde (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	08:22 . . RocorOldel (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	08:00 . . BoccdOmcna (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	08:00 . . MonmoNbocc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	08:00 . . BoccnAtatr (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:59 . . LirelDarmo (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:58 . . GettaAcelc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:56 . . SitacElvar (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:55 . . RacsiTlile (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:51 . . ElousItbas (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:50 . . LimonRolar (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	07:48 . . AcelgEtdel (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	03:06 . . DomouNorol (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	03:04 . . C4tc4Ttroc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	02:55 . . DarlaDomor (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	01:33 . . Yhytrans (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	00:30 . . DomraCrolc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account

and a string from the preceding period / day 

          	23:59 . . LinobAsnoc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:47 . . TaoloSitdr (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:42 . . RacvaRouch (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:39 . . RacdaRerdo (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:38 . . C4tliZelro (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:37 . . MonliLipas (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:36 . . VielcHicoc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:30 . . CaracLetor (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:25 . . OudarOloac (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:24 . . CcavaRgetd (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:23 . . AcelrAcroo (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:21 . . LisitTrtro (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:13 . . RactaEltvi (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:05 . . ChidoMouva (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:03 . . TrellIgeta (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	23:02 . . DronrOcric (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:57 . . SitreLolov (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:47 . . C4tc4Tbosi (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:43 . . SitcnAlali (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:41 . . PasouMonac (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:40 . . PascoC4tge (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:31 . . C4telCotrr (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:31 . . LiligEtc4t (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:31 . . BoczeLladr (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:31 . . OudarSitsi (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:30 . . RolelTorde (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:30 . . CadomBotro (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:30 . . CasitCalac (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:29 . . RodarRacge (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:29 . . MontrOcdro (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:29 . . CnaelRacou (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	22:29 . . BoelrEldro (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	21:19 . . LibozElace (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	20:58 . . VidomNochi (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	20:46 . . RictaLaerc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
Hi Billinghurst! This is occurring on many wikis, including some non WMF ones. There was an apparent bot creating accounts that match this pattern last year... perhaps it, or a variant, is back. As these are found, they are CUed and blocks placed. The WS CUs should already be watching the threads on the checkuser-l mailing list and acting appropriately. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Are these accounts even used at all, or is the bot simply creating them and not doing anything else? I've noticed that these accounts have no edits. I know it's possible that these accounts have created pages that were later deleted, but since I am not an administrator and have no access to Special:DeletedContributions, I cannot tell if this is the case. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
None of the 'bot' accounts made edits. I checked that at the time, as part of putting welcome messages, which was what twigged my suspicion in the first place. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of these have been created from the same IP. I think they should all be blocked to prevent them being misused later on. The IPs with multiple account registrations include:

I havent done an extensive check of them all; just enough to know that they are mostly multiple accounts on the same IP. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Temporary block on User:JoshuaSlanders

I have placed a temporary block on User:JoshuaSlanders. It is due to the editing being undertaken, and the reluctance of the user to enter into a discussion about it. Various edits to the user's talk page have brought forth no communication from the user. I have informed the user and also stated that the place to appeal my actions is their talk page. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[Heads up] The 81.106.203.205 (talk • contribs) is again active, and one that we should keep a light eye upon the edits made. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Butthead vandal

Help! User:Hohauto running rampant

User:Hohauto has vandalised a dozen major pages in the last few minutes. If someone could block him, please!--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done thanks for keeping that under control. Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected WS:COTW and WS:POTM

We have just had a third attack for the day on these two pages, and with images that we wouldn't consider those that we would encourage (while one of them was a lovely picture, it is not the sort that you could have in an office environment). I have put infinite semi-protection on the pages to minimise the upset that could occur. If that is considered too reactive, then happy to have the discussion. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cirt (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just keep it limited, try removing it after a week and see if the vandal is gone. I don't want to see them permanently semi-protected, we encourage new members to take up the burden of helping update these things. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei. 14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Am I missing something, there isn't a history of WS:POTM and WS:COTW being modified by new users. Plus these topics being something for consideration of members of the community, it would seem that they would have a level of interaction before making any edit as such.-- billinghurst (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if they have helped in the past, but that they should be able to help in the future; there's no need to go around semi-protecting things that are will be reverted within five minutes anyways - I'd rather we stay more true to our Wiki roots, and deal with one more vandal every two years. Note there's also no history of POTM and COTW being frequently vandalised by new users. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Galileo Galilei. 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point, newbies cannot find it to vandalise it, or work out what is going on within it. We just have knowledgeable vandal(s) who create/s new accounts, and knows the weaknesses of the system. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Two vandal IDs used one of the same graphic pictures of the human body used by vandals on the 25th and 26th of June to vandalize the top New Text and its contributor's user page. I gave them a permanent block based on their misuse of sexually graphic material and the fact that they were targeting highly trafficked areas and the individuals charged with maintaining them in doing their vandalism. When I saw that they were repeat offenders, it cemented my conviction that I took the right action. Keep an eye out for more of the same. ResScholar (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser reveals that LordOfTheBirds = 59.93.220.156. No surprise there. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Same exact behavior was done by this account at Wikiquote [7], possible related accounts include Touchglad and Unstoppable Robot. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this vandal is related to the "ass pus" vandal. Their modi operandi are different, but both have been known to attack high-traffic pages. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar thoughts to those that I have been having. Result is the same unfortunately. I am still working on a way to electrify keyboards and send down jolts to an IP address. Mooohahahahaaaaa. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Solution

The only solution to get rid of this vandal attack is a range block. --Fandal Is Back (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

CU request (obviously). Following consultation from the Stewards, I have taken steps to lessen some of the immediate issues of inserting unrelated images to some pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal rampage

User:Hohauto in need of blocking and mass rollback. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, and mostly rolled back/deleted now. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Fandalbot, probable returning vandal. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And this is:
59.93.198.201 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
Again, no other accounts registered. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Returning as User:Return of the Fandal, active right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done Permablocked; thanks. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser reveals the vandal was on:
59.93.219.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
No other accounts are on that IP. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


A similar situation with [8] and [9] Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

blocked & reverted. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fandal - 7 Days Later

An old friend returns, apparently. --Eliyak T·C 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done wow, someone just has way too much time on their hands. We may need some better automation. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Fandal Hits Back

VANDALISM - Say, what did you guys do to this slob's article to make him/her such a tool?? George Orwell III (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  DoneKathleen has done the first part of the clean up, and I touched a few too. Who knows how this one got to be such a butthead, though as buttheads scaling factor, this one is an expert. Part of the downside of being in an open system. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quick reply. George Orwell III (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed User:FandalDisney who's been blocked elsewhere as a vandal; see. I'm quite tempted to preemptively block it here, too; takers? For more lulz, we take it to a steward. If I recall correctly, the Disney/Bambi vandal is a middle-school kid from Mobile, Alabama. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal to Fandal is too easy to do to pre-emptively block IMNSHO, however, maybe there is consideration given for that mix to be in a creation prevention mode. That said, it doesn't stop vandalism, just that name. Will ask discuss with stewards. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
another

BACK AGAIN - this time as Fandal - A New Beginning George Orwell III (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Done
  Done for one month. Can request again if it recurs. billinghurst (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, that the stewards have identified another means that we can use to lessen some of this, and I have undertaken to start to manage that. Issue that I have is that the vandal seems very wiki-aware and just works around the barriers. Further, a CU has been done and some blocking has been undertaken. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:68.49.74.62 acted as a copycat or alias of this vandal tonight, using the name "Rabiddogg" or something similar. Thomas V caught him, blocked for two weeks, apparently unaware of the circumstances of his activity. I upped it to five years. ResScholar (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dhandal Strikes Back

The PITA is back again, same tactics. Blocked, though I think that we will need to be vigilant again.-- billinghurst (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reblocked the IP range 59.93.0.0/16 for two weeks. If it happens again, reblock it again. Also, abuse filters should be able to prevent some of these edits. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandal reappeared and range reblocked for a month today. ResScholar (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 59.93.0.0/16 for 3 months as back as JhandalComesBack (talk • contribs). Can we please have a CU to confirm user at this IP address. billinghurst (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


IP 68.81.95.145 block modification

68.81.95.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) has complained about the application of an infinite block to that IP address, to which four admins have applied blocks in April/May for increasing periods. I have modified the account to allow user creation, and left a note on User talk:68.81.95.145. I am happy for someone to differ in an opinion and reimpose a ban if they think that this is too lenient, and we should await better resolution; similarly if the ban should be completely lifted, that isn't overly going to phase me. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Shortened the block a little bit. Cirt (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AbuseFilter

At Special:AbuseFilter, I created some filters for the pattern vandalism, at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. They are all only set to "log only" so they won't do anything other than log the actions of vandalism when they occur - for monitoring purposes - and then we could discuss enabling them at some point in the future. They work pretty well at en.wikiquote. Cirt (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Files that are unlicenced and unused

Via Special:UnusedFiles we can identify a lot of files that are not linked. Many of these files do not seem to have a licence attached to them. Is there some specific history to know about the space, or hidden information about how we manage the space? -- billinghurst (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sufficiency of checkusers and bureaucrats

[This is in no way a criticism] I am wondering whether we have a sufficient number of CUs and bureaucrats, with the current selection having a number of activities that are limiting their availability, and hence restricting some of our ability to respond to existing difficulties. This component of our requirements is newer to me and would appreciated hearing others opinions on the matter. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If we have admins who are able and willing to take on either role, who believe they are likely to achieve consensus, then I would encourage them to nominate themselves. I am not sure we should push people to apply just because we would like more, nor refuse nominations if ever we thought the numbers sufficient. Stewards can always be applied to for CU when none are locally available and b'crat tasks are few and far between. CU besides trustworthiness needs some amount of technical competence that not all admins will have. Including myself, so someone else will have to detail what is needed there. B'crat tasks are at the same technical level as admin tasks, but I personally think they need an amount social competence not always found on the internet. B'crats will have to deal with difficult situations. While even the best handling will never to satisfy aggrieved people, poor handling of a refusal to grant flags could make things considerably worse.--BirgitteSB 18:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems that there is either a lot of agreement, or possibly not a lot of interest. Thanks for the response Birgitte, all very valid points, though I found stewards quite reticent & reluctant to do CUs during the latest vandalism as they said "You have local CU", which is why I brought the discussion here.
I personally would like to see us have another CheckUser, and wondered whether a discussion might indicate an interest from the longer term WS admins (and the person that I had in mind did decline). I am not one for blowing my own trumpet, though in the absence of any preferred candidate, I am willing to undertake the task. I believe that my skill set from my postmaster days is sufficient to identify and distinguish IP addresses against relevant IP ranges, and use of the tools. That said, I am more than willing to support anyone else who believes that they have a better snowflakes chance to get the community's support, as said, I just think another CU would be helpful especially with the recent amount of vandalism, and the load that our current CUs undertake in the global wiki. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


Policy Clarifcation and a request

The following were added based on scans held on Google Books...


However, because of claims made elsewhere, Can someone either delete these or confirm that they are acceptable within Wikisource policy?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about the claims, I don't know how to answer the question, and I don't think that anyone else can, either. If they match the Google Books copies, they were published long before 1923 by authors long dead and working (in the one case I looked at) from printings that were hundreds of years old. I don't see any reason to do anything unless somebody points out with specificity why these either violate the copyright law or Wikisource policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am presuming that the claim is related to some level of copyright. My understanding is that they are not under copyright, and that fact would be exhibited that Google has them online. As Pros said, they are able to be housed at Wikisource under its existing policies, unless you can identify an anomaly. If you are after a specific comment on a specific claim, then we will require specific pointers and specific information.
If you are talking about the NGV issue at Commons, then that would not seem to have a bearing, as part of that claim is on copyright of new images of existing works. That said, the only definitive means for deciding a legal claim to copyright is a court of law, or a contract in law, and law overrides any policy. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The argument that photos of 2-D art taken by skilled photographers creates a new copyright on the photo, even if it is upheld in the UK, may not be applied robot scanning. And even if the robot scans are held copyrighted, the underlying text will still be PD. That hypothetical copyright would only be attached to the image; the same way a recording of Aretha Franklin singing "The Star-spangled Banner" is copyrighted audio while the lyrics remain PD.--BirgitteSB 14:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I seem to recall a UK ruling that simply photocopying a page did not acquire a copyright. Whatever the case on that, I think the linchpin here is that the universities worked with Google under an agreement that let Google release them as PD texts, and thus lost the ability to claim copyright, even if we do directly copy the pictures from the Google Books copies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

B'crat absence

Zhaladshar is on vacation right now and my hard drive failed on Friday, and will be minimally online till I get a new computer later this week. Please email me anything that needs my attention as I will check my inbox first whenever I can get online.--BirgitteSB 13:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I should be back in another week. They are having a sales tax holiday on back-to-school items next weekend (including computers) and everyone puts out competitive sales to get the business.--BirgitteSB 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Dhandal Strikes Back

Kept for reference due to nature of existing block.

The PITA is back again, same tactics. Blocked, though I think that we will need to be vigilant again.-- billinghurst (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reblocked the IP range 59.93.0.0/16 for two weeks. If it happens again, reblock it again. Also, abuse filters should be able to prevent some of these edits. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Vandal reappeared and range reblocked for a month today. ResScholar (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 59.93.0.0/16 for 3 months as back as JhandalComesBack (talk • contribs). Can we please have a CU to confirm user at this IP address. billinghurst (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request

I would ask that User:Stolengood and User:Klaatu have their IPs address checked against the range 72.195.0.0 to 72.215.0.0 and thereabouts. Anonymous user(s) in this range vandalized the The Tragedy of Julius Caesar article, trying to force the inclusion of a set of spurious verses that User:Klaatu submitted. For whatever reason, User:Stolengood joined the anonymous user(s) in this range, first indirectly, then directly, in deleting a description of the vandalism on the talkpage. Other possible IPs include 65.71.204.53, 66.244.etc., 67.82.etc., 71.91.etc., 125.23.etc. or 165.234.etc. (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Stolengood removed descriptions of vandalism on a heavily vandalized page, I also propose that his recent contribution be removed from the New Texts category. It seems this ought to be a privilege for users in good standing. ResScholar (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably worthwhile asking them to explain their actions and a little presumption of faith, before condemnation occurs. billinghurst (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
(Addendum) At the same time, I have no problems ensuring that we employ some stringency on what gets added onto {{New texts}}, though I still be voting for lighter hand than heavier hand. billinghurst (talk)
I misreported an event above: Stolengood directly removed the description of the vandalism that had occurred and had been deleted before by the 72.etc. anon and restored by an Admin (John Vandenberg), and then tried to remove a link to the page that contained it by deleting a template message, the template also containing other important information about the text. That is in itself vandalism. The only other thing that's important to me is whether there is evidence that this was more than a copycat offense, namely that it was part of a repeat offense exercised previously from an anonymous account. ResScholar (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
First, I don't think the New Texts should be considered any sort of privilege for users; it's a recognition of the new texts on Wikisource, something we glory in as a group. Dallas Trade Mart Speech is a good text, a proofread version of the copy on the JFK presidential library website, and deserves to be so recognized.
Secondly, looking at the whole of User:Stolengood's contributions, I think throwing around vandal too quickly is concerning. I don't think we should be so quick to conceptualize it as admins and vandals; a new user doesn't know who the admins are and even experienced users can have a hard time telling vandalism from good edits sometimes. I don't know why they removed the description of vandalism. I will happily assume that removing the {{no source}} from a work we know came from Shakespeare--duh--was an edit done in good faith. They definitely use too many minor edits, but every other edit besides those two have been good. I think it should have been taken up on their talk page before bringing it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Why are you acting like Stolengood's two edits aren't connected? They both imitate an anon (known for vandalism) in concealing the fact that a spurious addition was attempted to be integrated into the work. That he reverted an admin's correction in doing so is just the icing on the cake.
And the fact that you scorn my calling the removal of {{no source}} vandalism only shows your ignorance of the matter. Shakespeare's works do in fact need a source: Shakespeare didn't write in modern English, so the spelling needs to be translated by a translator for one thing. For another, Shakespeare's writings come in different editions with subtle variations.
These notions were brought up by User:Webbbbbbber on the Julius Caesar talkpage (and are still there since Stolengood didn't manage to erase it) and resulted in protracted intelligent discussions with another user on how best to handle those editions on the first user's own talkpage. On the Julius Caesar talkpage, there is also mention of 4 different editions at the Gutenberg site. And you being someone who worked on the proofreading arm of that project, I'd think you'd resent the removal of warnings of vandalism that took the form of such a gross violation of the textual integrity of the work.
You also talk about looking at "the whole of [Stolengood's] contributions" using the name "vandal" is "concerning" and claim that "every other edit…has been good." This argument seems appropriate to someone mocking an intelligent assessment of Stolengood's behavior, rather than to an admin wanting to deal with a real problem when you consider that besides his New Text contribution, his user page, and the vandalism, he has made a total of four edits.
You can mock various postures to prove some point if you like. It just doesn't seem appropriate to a serious Admin. ResScholar (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't deny that Shakespeare's plays need a source. I deny that that's necessarily obvious to a new user, or that a mistaken edit is necessarily vandalism. I have concern about the unexplained removal of the mention of vandalism on the talk page, but it was a two-year addition to the talk page and of minimal relevance. Possibly the edit was intended as clean-up or a test. I have no intent to mock anything, and one would hope that a serious Admin would give another serious Admin a little more good faith than that. They've made two bad edits, made five good edits, and added a new text. In the past month, they've done nothing the least bit concerning. I think the appropriate solution here, at most, is to point out a couple things on their talk page, and wait and see what they do.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
And after thought on the matter, it would go against established habit on talk pages, but I think we should delete vandalism notes like the one StolenGood deleted, under the same ideas as w:WP:DENY. It's not helpful to describe a one-time or long-forgotten vandalism--what are the odds they'll come back and do the same thing again?--but it leaves a permanent mark of the vandal's presence on a current page on the Wiki. Again, I don't know what StolenGood's motivations were, but I don't see their actions as a whole provoking major concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
A charitable interpretation of your behavior suggests you are unable to come to grips with the facts. Stolengood vandalized the Julius Caesar talk page and then the page itself to cover his tracks. You mocked me. Stolengood didn't make two bad edits and five good edits, he made two malicious edits and many suspicious edits. Nobody claimed Stolengood's actions provoked major concern. Through these denials, you are, perhaps inadvertently, raising contentiousness in the matter and protracting the notoriety of a vandal while simultaneously claiming to champion the principles of w:WP:DENY.
An more skeptical interpretation of your behavior is that you are taking Stolengood's golden banana of discord and getting as much mileage out of it as you can.
You say the description of vandalism StolenGood erased is of "a one-time or long-forgotten vandalism". The Julius Caesar page has been heavily vandalized, so that fact alone shows the description also serves as a representative warning for the other vandalistic behavior that occurred. Also it's not too often that a specimen of vandalism, the piece of vandalism in question, gets its own page on an urban legends website, suggesting that it's quite possible that it will reappear again--that's what urban legends do. ResScholar (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to block User:Stolengood for five days for simple, and presumed copycat vandalism. If anyone wants to do a checkuser, we can apply a second warning block if it turns out he was the anon who did the first removal of User:Nicknack009's vandalism notice and the source document notice. (mis-sign corrected) ResScholar (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a gross violation of our blocking policy: "In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikisource." (Bold in the original.) I fail to see how a short-term block of someone for edits done 2 months ago is in any way preventative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why do you fight tooth and nail to defend this guy who could have caused real damage to Wikisource's reputation through such a gross distortion to such a well-known text, while practicing such meticulous care to accuracy with your own texts, even obscure ones, on Project Gutenberg as you recently described on the Scriptorium? You yourself reverted someone who had vandalized the talk page of Julius Caesar after User:Stolengood, so it can't be because you're not aware of the problem. The purpose of the (actually quite short) block is to warn him and others that Wikisource admins take Wikisource's reputation for textual integrity seriously, and that such users that work to undermine that reputation can expect to lose editing privileges on each and every occasion that it happens. You also were arguing that we should let him have his way, and now turn around and suggest the block is too short.
And I don't even take textual integrity as seriously as you and Eclecticology claim to. I see Wikisource texts to be primarily used as pedagogical introductions to more difficult texts by the clarifying use of wikilinks and subject collections, and thereby inducing in the student intellectual exercise in responding intelligently to them in the course of attempting to master the liberal arts. ResScholar (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Umm, ResScholar, I believe that the comment is with respect that a five day block on someone not actively editing may bring you comfort, though may be futile and even go unnoticed by the editor. Can I suggest that you have both covered the discussion from different perspectives, and the CheckUsers have their policy on what they can and cannot do in this regard, will do as they see fit, and at the moment neither of them are particularly active here at this time. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already made it clear that I would leave the matter to the CheckUsers' discretion. Though I appreciate your solicitude for my "comfort", bear in mind if the block seems minor, it's a public warning mark on his record that would sanction future blocks of longer duration. ResScholar (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think if looking at questionable edits, I'd be much more likely to notice and respond to previous notices on the talk page than to blocks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just noticed this. I'm reviewing the contributions, here and on en.WP. I am concerned about a lot of the content changes, such as this. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

69.193.197.122--Changes to Yippie Workshop Speech.--Xxagile (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but there doesn't seem to be any actual vandalism this time around. That speech contains profanity by its nature, and the IP address in question doesn't seem to have altered it, only added links and formatting. --Eliyak T·C 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was in a hurry and the "added profanity" just caught my eye. I didn't think to check and see if needed to be there.--Xxagile (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is the second instance I've noticed of a false positive, another user seemed annoyed at having their contrib annotated with the above. I found one thing that might have triggered it, someone else suggested another innocent word may have caused it. Maybe the filter needs tweaking, but I think the wording "added profanity" needs modifying. Cygnis insignis (talk) 10:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I will modify to "added trigger word" -- billinghurst (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Please let us know if there are cases where it's unclear why it triggered. I've done the filter tweaking to make it more consistent with the tag, and the current version wouldn't have triggered on those edits. I doubt it would trigger on innocent words; rather, I think the confusion is that "added" is based on lines, not words (it shares the same limitations as the diff system), so edits to pages with profanity could trigger more often than expected. That's good if we can give extra scrutiny to those pages without alienating people. It's nice to see that changes to the tags are retroactive, so we can keep an eye on this, and see if that change is still needed. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot generated accounts?

Looks like we have another string of bot generated accounts -- billinghurst (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

              	09:42 . . RicelTvart (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	09:36 . . ZelbaSleto (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	09:34 . . RelalLetoc (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	09:32 . . TagetDelge (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	09:31 . . TrocsItacd (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	09:25 . . DelcoAcela (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
              	09:10 . . Ouc4tRacda (Talk | contribs | block) New user account

Move

Could an Admin move the page Annals_of_the_World/Preface to Annals of the World/Explanatory Notes? I forgot about moving it for some dumb reason. Just overwrite it. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an odd request, since those pages have different text. But since you've contributed both pages yourself, I can't see why not—done. Let me know if you need to recover the deleted Explanatory Notes text. Hesperian 01:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Undo the move, I need to figure it out. Arlen22 (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Done and... Hesperian 02:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what was wrong, I meant move Annals_of_the_World/Preface to Annals of the World/Epistle to the Reader. Please undo the other thing and do that. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

...Done. Hesperian 02:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin cleaning out accounts

Today, an admin deleted their user page and blanked their user talk page. While there will be reasons for this, it doesn't seem to be against a policy. Personally, I cannot say that I feel that it is best practice, or that it falls within expected governing principles, it does seem that this is something that should be allowed to pass uncommented. Not wanting to make a fuss about it, wondering whether others had general comment. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Over at that other place, you are permitted to delete your user page so long as it doesn't contain evidence of problematic behaviour; but you may not delete your talk page, though you are permitted to blank it. It was a reasonable guess that we would uphold much the same standard. So in this specific case, I see someone who is upset, and who has decided to leave this project, yet in leaving has still made some attempt to abide by our rules and expectations. Hesperian 04:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Understand that Hesperian, and it wasn't so much the undertaking of the action, more that an admin undertook the action. The perspective that I was following, as fellow administrators, do we pass that action off unnoticed and uncommented, or do we take that as an indication of other or greater intent; or implicit statement. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I get you now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hesperian 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
:-( best of luck billinghurst (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


I've taken the liberty of adding a note to Wikisource:Administrators/Archives/Jack Merridew recording that (a) he has resigned his bit; (b) this was voluntary; and (c) he was in good standing with this project at the time. If anyone disagrees with this summary, or if I've overstepped (i.e. if this should have been left for a 'crat to do) then go right ahead and revert me. Hesperian 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good.--BirgitteSB 17:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
*cough*

The drama at the *other* place* seems sorted out. It's certainly moving in the right direction, at least. Maybe I should wait a bit, but I'd like to hear folks' views on my requesting the bit back; I'll be putting the user space back together, too, and am mulling a new theme to things. I've no user pages anywhere at the moment. Sorry for the fuss.

I think I saw Hesperian fussing with some bit of css yesterday and I'm kinda good at that. The theme to the drama is really about whether I'm on these projects to help or to hurt. As John said in his proposing me for the mop here, I've meant well all along. On *all* projects.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be no problem, I should think. To the extent that you've made an unnecessary fuss, your embarrassment is punishment enough. ;-) Hesperian 12:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd cheer if you ask for it back. I would even happily nail your feet to WS so you couldn't go wandering around like a lost tom cat. I still have a list of tasks that I want from you around CSS ... noice tables being at the top. billinghurst (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Terima kasih, guys. I'd like it back, then ;) I'll let this get sorted locally rather than go to meta; that was just about getting it done near instantly. I promise I'll put more time in here. Real-life is still complicated and an *other place* de-focus is in order. Cheers \*/ — Jack Merridew 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

nb: I'm kinda liking the maroon sig; I may hard-code that ;) Jack Merridew 16:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, whereas I am just happy that my sig is spelt correctly! <laugh> billinghurst (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
sometimes I get a tad silly with my sigs. It's just for laughs.
—Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you think? Try either the maroon pills! billinghurst (talk)
I did pop a few Valiums last month. They helped. Jack Merridew 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm desperately keen that we not import the dramaz over here. All it takes is for someone on the other side of the argument to wander over to this project and find a comment that they feel the need to refute, and we have a ready-made shitstorm on our hands. So let's all keep talking about silly signatures, deal with the sysop bit issue post-haste, and archive this thread as soon as possible. Hesperian 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, you can all have silly sigs if you like ;) mine sig-in-prefs is the boring one showing red at the moment; I paste the lulz in as needed and the above was about figuring out why code from en:wp using their w:Template:Click was behaving differently with our older Template:Click; the original code mal-rendered here and the above uses the new link syntax but has fewer feature. I could get this sorted with a quick post on meta and think I'll do so tomorrow if nothing rolls here over night. I just posted a manifesto over there Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have restored the sysop flag. My general caveats about this are that the annual reconfirmation stills takes place on the original schedule as opposed to a year from today and that such a removal/restoration per request is summarized in the introduction to the first reconfirmation after it occurs. Otherwise I don't see the need to fuss over the issue. Any concerns about such requests should be dealt with through the usual means for dealing with concerns about admins (i.e. wait for the annual discussion or provoke an immediate vote of confidence if enough people are greatly concerned). I will sort out the notation of this later in the archives when I have a bit more time. (Unless some else wants to jump in.)--BirgitteSB 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; as I just posted on my talk page, I see your comments above as all appropriate and good. I will post a brief note about this in the subpage re my adminship. I'm going to omit details best left at the *other place*. Beyond a note, I think it best to just leave this be and someone should archive it within a shortish time. I'm going to restore the user space pages and the bot account (and think it time to consider getting that moving;). I've not decided on what I'd now like for a user page. The old one was getting stale and Durova told me the ogoh-ogoh girl kept coming to mind when she though of me; he he he. fyi, they're not all like that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Emesee block expiration

Just a heads up about User:Emesee. His twelve day block expires August 25, 2009. ResScholar (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Some aliases of him are

ResScholar (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Import Request

Could someone please import w:Template:Box-header to Template:Box-header ? This is a very useful template but we have to import it in order to keep the edit history. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  Done

abusive user attacking newbies

Haha jima (talk • contribs) is leaving very unfriendly messages on newbies' talk pages. An admin might want to take care of this. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, banned for a week. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 06:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes error?

The recent changes page on my computer only goes back to 3:04 (UTC) September 21, and then quits. It's the same in Beta and normal versions. ResScholar (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Hesperian made 497 deletions. Nevermind. ResScholar (talk) 04:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WMF: Software updates

Zyephyrus identified that we have had WMF software updates, and on having a look, the following look to be of interest to WS.

-- billinghurst (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request to remove "Double five-letter" accounts

I would request that those "Double five-letter" possibly bot-generated accounts be removed from the wiki, as I have just discovered they match the modus operandi of a spammer on another wiki. Back in October 2007, a series of eleven "word-like" double five-letter user accounts were originated and employed on The Louverture Project to produce page-length spam lists on various wiki pages for mostly Italian websites.

Most of the reversions (and the spam pages) can be seen here.

ResScholar (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I can delete the accounts, a while back I did block the specific accounts, and made record of the originating IP addresses. Some have been blocked as open proxies at WMF level. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Billinghurst, for taking appropriate action. ResScholar (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CommonsTicker

Does anyone know the status of CommonsTicker? User:CommonsTicker hasn't edited for well over a year. It is my understanding that it has been rendered redundant by CommonsDelinker. I've just purged the "notifications" on Wikisource:CommonsTicker, all of which were ancient. Does anyone care that it doesn't work? Can we clean it up properly; i.e. delete {{TickerEntry}}, {{TickerAction}}, etc.? Should the account be blocked? Hesperian 05:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I cannot say that I have ever seen it functional in my short time here, so unless there was some definitive advantage with its operations and we still have that requirement, then my thoughts would be let's close it out and tidy up after it. It would seem to be no longer supported. -- billinghurst (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment I don't know what this thing is, or was, but there's a bunch of css in MediaWiki:Common.css that seems related; and if this is all over, it should be removed. Anyone know a tool that will allow searching the whole project for css classes and IDs? Once something is in the css it's difficult to know if it can be removed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
As for what it was, it was a bot that monitored the Commons, and let us know about changes that impacted us. For example, if an image that we were using was deleted at Commons, that would leave an ugly image redlink on a page here. Such changes do not appear in our RC or logs, so it is difficult for us to systematically detect and repair them. CommonsTicker would tell us about them. The availability of CheckUsage and CommonsDelinker has rendered it redundant. Hesperian 02:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I did go looking a bit after posting the above. As long as folks at commons do right, all should be fine without this. We need to be fostering greater trust and cooperation between projects. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think CommonsTicker is by and large over and done with. It hasn't been working on any WM project for ages. I say we remove the CSS, block the account and clean up the CT-associated pages.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems agreed. I've just cut the css. That diff should probably be noted on the user account page or somewhere so the last version of the css can be restored if it's ever is needed. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I grepped a recent text dump, and did not find those classes used elsewhere. —Pathoschild 21:00:46, 07 October 2009 (UTC)
I've blocked the account, deleted the templates, and marked the pages historical. I think logging actions taken to decommission is perhaps slightly overdoing it, but I have nonetheless done so at Wikisource:CommonsTicker. I suppose the safest thing to do is to leave it at that for now. If someone stumbles across it in a year or so, we might delete it all then. Hesperian 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, the little bit of me that is the pedant, loves the bows tied and the actions taken. Very nice Hesperian! -- billinghurst (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Constitution of the Philippines (1987) protection

By some quirk of international affairs, this is the 17th most requested work on Wikisource. And it shows from the frequency of minor vandals that try to "amend" it. I'm going to protect it as a fairly trusted source for the sake of those Philippino nationalists apparently seeking an impartial third party outside their government to study one of their key national state papers. ResScholar (talk) 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible CAT screw up

In my efforts to try and get my arms around the stray articles that relate to the U.S. President and/or the Executive branch, I may have screwed up. I've found about 2 dozen Presidential Memorandum (similar to an Executive Order but is used to modify practices or policies only within the major Executive Branch agencies like the Dept. of Defense or Dept. of State) issued by at least 3 U.S. Presidents (so far). The pages on which some of these Memos have been listed are, of course, on headerless author subpages and junk or are themselves not up to standard to some degree.

Anyway, long story short, I created a category with the intention of pointing them to this CAT as needed, but I may have made a grammatical mistake in naming it. I figure if the category needs to be deleted (no move option) I might as well create the new one with the proper title. What's the best designation?; should the Cat be...

  • Category:United States Presidential memorandum (current); or
  • Category:United States Presidential memorandums ; or
  • Category:United States Presidential memoranda ; or
  • Category:United States Presidential memorandas ; (incorrect per spell-check) or
  • Category:United States Presidential memorandi (joking) ; or, of course, the cheat
  • Category:United States Presidential memos

Using the cheat is somewhat problematic because there are official memorandum (Gov't re-published and, lately, even assigned an index #) and the other more informal but still historically significant type that typically goes into the Presidential Library at some point or the "leaked" version(s) - which I've seen on here too. Personally, I don't think this is that big of an issue for use here on WS, but wrong is wrong no matter how I could slant or rationalize using it if I don't have to. Can somebody fix it as best needed? George Orwell III (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have said the plural is memoranda, as per agendum and agenda. Though I haven't checked my version of the Oz style manual. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
OK then - I gave it a day. That seems to be right by 3rd party listings at university libraries as well. Can someone please delete or rename it to that? Thanks. George Orwell III (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  Done well, you created new, and I deleted old, as you cannot move a category. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

New gadget added - edittop

Quite helpful when you only want to edit something in the top of the page before the first subsection, like the header. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Request

Could someone please delete the following two pages: Annals of the World/Print version1 Annals of the World/Print version2

  Done -- billinghurst (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Now what shall I do about a print version? It is kind of frustrating. Arlen22 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the issue? What difficulty are you unable to resolve? -- billinghurst (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what to do about a print version. Is such a thing needed. We use them all the time on Wikibooks. But Annals of the World is simply too big, despite its small size. Arlen22 (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Usually the way we do it at Wikibooks is just to transclude all the pages onto the print version. Arlen22 (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any tips? Because Annals of the World is too Big. Arlen22 (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/2009&oldid=14004767"