Author:Beatrix Potter

Unprotect Author:Beatrix Potter. It's been eight years, no pressing need for any protection. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, we should also unprotect all her works, which were all protected when decision was made to feature the author as a whole. On the placement of featured stars: why were they put on two of these works specifically? and why was protection level different between works (auto vs full)? Also, I have just adapted the template for authors. — Alien  3
3 3 08:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1910) because it has the color illustrations and is the first and most famous while The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots being recently discovered and hence of interest and published and hence that the public domain isn't just books first published ages ago. For works shown on the front page, they are targets of vandalism so I can understand locking them down around the time of featuring. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Download button vs. download sidebar

I’m reporting this here because I think an administrator needs to fix a page. The download features in the sidebar don’t do the same thing as the “download” button which floats to the right of the title; see, e.g., here, where the “Download” button gets the whole book, and the download sidebar features only get a list of the books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't know why nobody followed up on this issue back in February. Possibly it's because it's a somewhat technical issue and we're a little short on technically-minded admins. In any case: apologies for dropping the ball on this one! Could you retest the issue you originally saw to verify it still behaves the way you observed then? I suspect there may have been intervening changes.

@Samwilson: Using the Download button to download a PDF on the page TE(æ)A,ea. links above gives me a PDF with all the auxtoc pages but none of the actual chapters. Can you tell what's going on there? Xover (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Now, both options are broken. I suspect your removal of the hidden ToC is to blame. Having reverted that change, the issue is reversed: the “download” button gets only the list of books, while the sidebar gets the whole book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea., @Xover: I would've said that the sidebar links and the button are the same links, but they're not it seems:

  • Button: https://ws-export.wmcloud.org/?format=epub&lang=en&page=The_Wings_of_the_Dove_(New_York%3A_Charles_Scribner%27s_Sons%2C_1902)
  • Sidebar: https://ws-export.wmcloud.org/?format=epub&lang=en&page=The_Wings_of_the_Dove_%28New_York%3A_Charles_Scribner%27s_Sons%2C_1902%29

  And indeed, the output differs. It's also different from the CLI tool's output with an unencoded title. I'll have a look at fixing this. Sam Wilson 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Studies in constitutional law Fr-En-US (1891).pdf

The original upload of this file had many pages removed, for some reason (separate from the two missing pages, which have been added). The following pages need to be moved:

• /2–/12 up 5
• /13–/15 up 6
• /16 up 7
• /17–/65 up 8
• /66 up 9
• /67–/149 up 10
• /150 up 11
• /151–/185 up 12
• /186 up 13
• /187–/192 up 14
• /193 up 19

The large swath of pages marked “Problematic” is, I believe, owing to the confused state of the pages. I’ll look over them after the move to see if they need to be changed in any respect. In addition, /31 and /32 can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Thank you. For those pages, delete /158, /159, /161, /196, and /197, and move /163–/195 up two. They can then all be marked as proofread. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of steward CU

Hello there, as per the local CU policy I just wanted to let you know that I performed a local check on a spambot (LawerenceCorley (talk • contribs)) here at enwikisource. This was the only check performed here by me, no other accounts or IPs other than the associated ones were checked. Thanks, EPIC (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am informing you that I checked the account Dahyang8484 (talk • contribs), which I locked for cross-wiki abuse. No other account has been checked or showed up on the checks I performed. For transparency, I've sent detailed information to checkuser-l. Best regards, Elton (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Per above, I also wanted to note that I just performed a local check on a spambot (IsabelleTemple (talk • contribs)). As the account was not registered on loginwiki (due to job queue issues), the check needed to be performed here. As in the case above, no other accounts or IPs were checked. EPIC (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Noting again for transparency that I performed a local check on a cross-wiki spam account (Ballala (talk • contribs)), since I couldn't do a check on loginwiki. No other accounts or IPs were checked except the related IP. EPIC (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, there. As per the local CU policy, I just wanted to note that I checked a spambot account (Helena0792 (talk • contribs)) locally. No other accounts or IP addresses other than the associated ones were checked. Regards, RadiX∞ 04:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as per the local policy I am noting that I checked a spambot account locally (GarfieldWinneke (talk • contribs)), similarly to the checks noted above. --KonstantinaG07 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

Crossposting my edit request from last week on Scriptorium here since only an admin could grant it and haven't gotten any response over there. Apologies if this is seen as being too pushy, I just haven't gotten any sort of reply yet and figured this might be an acceptable next step for being seen/getting a response.

My request is the following: I've been addressing specific priority syntax errors here on Wikisource, and have dropped two error types down to near zero. The Tidy Font Bug (78 remain), and Misnested tags (42 remain). 77 and 41 of these are on Full protected pages, and I wondered if I could have access to these Tidy font and these misnested pages for a brief time to address these issues. I have 2 years of experience on Wikipedia with handling these (and other) tracked syntax errors in an respectful and knowledgeable manner, and currently have a temporary adminship (Sept-Dec) on Wikivoyage, where I addressed 99.99% of their 30k syntax errors in 5k edits (Aug-Sept). I am happy to discuss or answer any questions admin may have. Thanks, and hope you have a great day. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: Such rights can be granted only by bureaucrats, i. e. Beeswaxcandle or BD2412. If you need temporary admin rights, I suspect that a formal request at Wikisource:Administrators#Nominations for adminship will be needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zinnober9: It's a relatively small number of edits. I can make them. Is it just a matter of, for example, changing:

<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">[[User:Zhaladshar|Zhaladshar]]</font> ^{<font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">[[User talk:Zhaladshar|(Talk)]]</font>}

to

[[User:Zhaladshar|<font style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Zhaladshar|<font style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk)</font>]]}

throughout the page? BD2412 T 14:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 The ones triggering the counts on Special:LintErrors/tidy-font-bug are mostly? all? Spangineer's signature, with recommended change:

<font color="brown">[[User talk:Spangineer|(háblame)]]</font>

to

[[User talk:Spangineer|<span style="color:brown">(háblame)</span>]].

Zhaladshar's signature is an oddity in that it is written in a Tidy font way (color stated outside the link), but for some odd reason isn't reporting as a Tidy font (it should be, but it's only reporting as obsolete tags used). I would still fully recommend adjusting Zhaladshar's signature however. Your suggested change would clear the Tidy font aspect of it, but I would swap it to this instead:

[[User:Zhaladshar|<span style="color: #000000; text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold">Zhaladshar</span>]] ^{[[User talk:Zhaladshar|<span style="color: #FF0000; font-size: small; text-decoration: none">(Talk)</span>]]}

to fix both the unreported Tidy font issues and the reported obsoletes in one go.

For the two pages with multiple misnested errors, Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007 and Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2008

If you'd change </sup>''''' to '''</sup> that'll clear all those up. It's with the

^{'''''[[Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week|Collaboration of the Week]]:'' [[Author:XXXXXX]]}''''' posts, and there's an extra italics, and the remaining bold is misnested with the sup closer. There isn't anything else on those two pages with </sup>''''', so that's a safe X to Y find and replace.

I'm happy for you to take care of those Tidy fonts and misnested errors for me, I'm also happy to go through a temporary admin nomination process here since I've done that before on Wikivoyage, and there will be some other full protected pages of interest later on as I get the Obsoletes reduced (I'm seeing 725 obsolete errors on 75 full protected pages at this moment with 2500 unprotected that I can handle now). Your call, I'm the guest here. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I will give it a shot now. BD2412 T 19:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

So, how can I tell whether that has worked? BD2412 T 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@BD2412 Looks great, thank you so much! You can tell by the Page information (link in the tools section of the sidebar) it tells what Lint errors remain (if any) on a specific page in the Lint section towards the bottom. this has a few and this has no tracked Lint issues (of any type) remaining. In this case though, where the error type is almost eliminated from the site, it's easier to look at the list of just that one error type in particular: Special:LintErrors/tidy-font-bug. Got two pages remaining for you and that'll finish these off*.

For the single Tidy Font on Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007 change <i><font color="#9966FF">[[User:BirgitteSB|Birgitte]]</font><font color="#CC99CC" size="2">SB</font></i>

to

[[User:BirgitteSB|<span style="color:#9966FF">Birgitte</span>]]<span style="color:#CC99CC; font-size:small">SB</span>

and for the four on Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2006-03, change

<b><font color="000000">[[User:Adrian|A]]</font></b><font color="#646060">drian</font><b> <font color="#000000">[[User_Talk:Adrian|L]]</font></b><font color="#646060">amo </font><b><font color="#F660AB">·· </font></b>

to

<b>[[User:Adrian|<span style="color:#000000">A</span>]]</b><span style="color:#646060">drian</span><b> [[User_Talk:Adrian|<span style="color:#000000">L</span>]]</b><span style="color:#646060">amo </span><b><span style="color:#F660AB">·· </span></b>

*The other single Tidy font case (Spangineer's signature) on LlywelynII's (unprotected) talk page is a different story. I've been reverted once and the user has refused and reverted my attempt to discuss it despite clear explanation of what and why I had adjusted Spangineer's signature and the Obsolete tags in their own signature, so I've felt I'm not in a position to push it. My hope has been that another user or an admin might have better luck from the social perspective of fixing that Tidy Font. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also the LintHint tool you can use that reads that Lint info, and allows for checking a full page before publishing an edit. It gets added to your Common.js page and is a major tool I use in checking behind myself in editing. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there more protected pages that have errors to fix? BD2412 T 21:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm only interested in three pages at this moment. I'm going wait and assess what remains in the Obsoletes after the unprotected pages are depleted. My hope is that those full-protected pages with Obsolete tags will have only 4 or 5 repeating signatures and won't take much effort.

The three pages I'm interested in right now are the following. I made the full page changes in my sandbox for our convenience, so you can take the newer version of each sandbox diff and paste it to the original page for a full page or sectional replacement.

• diff Dmitrismirnov for the changes on User:Dmitrismirnov (table tags, unclosed/stripped tags)
• diff Archive for the remaining errors on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-03 (fostered table errors, obsolete/unclosed/misnested tags) and
• diff Henry James for section Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007#Author:Henry James (stripped s tags).

No rush, whenever it is convenient. Thank you so much! Zinnober9 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes.. See Special:LintErrors by going through each namespace in turn. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Index merge request

I’m putting this request here so that administrators can deal with the Page: moves. Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf has recently been created, which contains the entire issue of the periodical from which Index:The Eye of Argon.djvu has been excerpted. Could someone please move the pages from the .djvu to the .pdf, please? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @CalendulaAsteraceae:? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this move, but I notice that Index:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf is missing pages 49 and 50. Maybe take this to the scan lab first? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe at least put two blind pages if the right pages are temporarily not to find anywhere... Draco flavus (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Some registration problems mentioned in Scriptorium

Does anybody have any idea what the problem could be with some new accounts' registration, as asked at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#IP_Block_Exemption? The IP does not seem to be blocked either locally or globally. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

V22 Discussions

Hi admins, just checking if it would be ok to start three separate discussions at the Scriptorium to try to get consensus on the best way for Vector 22 to handle a few specifics, to keep the discussions with the WMF web staff going and get their support implementing the outcomes. The main things seem to be:

• {{overfloat image}} (currently breaks when Standard and Large text sizes are selected)
• Text size options in appearance menu (what should the default be, etc.)
• Dark mode

I don't want to rush in if this isn't the best way to go about this. --Yodin^T 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Eievie unilateral style changes

Eievie (talk • contribs) has made unilateral style changes to works without discussion. Not only to a project I have been working on for eight years, but also to the current Featured Text (which is part of a series, with an established series style). The latter occurred just after I issued a reminder that this behavior was not acceptable.

I see several other editors have come to this User's Talk page with the same concern, including two other administrators. This user has always responded with arguments without ever acknowledging the problem. I have therefore blocked this user for three days. In the past this has been considered bad form and unacceptable, so I am asking other administrators to explain the problems with this attitude and approach.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reverts while failing to discuss

Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) made this request for another user to edit Help:Beginner's guide to copyright to include information about uploading files. I responded to the request twice, pointing out that this was not a copyright issue, but a file hosting issue. I received several replies here; here; here; here; and here, in which the third replay was "No, I am not" and the fourth was simply "No". I therefore asked for clarification.

I the meantime, while this discussion was happening, User:Pigsonthewing altered the page under discussion despite my objections. I reverted; User:Pigsonthewing immediately reverted again.

I therefore started a discussion on the topic.

I received no response at all from User:Pigsonthewing for my request for clarification, and no response from User:Pigsonthewing concerning the discussion topic either.

After waiting five days with no response, I restored the original wording, which User:Pigsonthewing immediately reverted. I restored the wording with a request to participate in the discussion. I was reverted again with the edit summary "NOone supports youo- objection."

Given that User:Pigsonthewing is (1) is insisting on the change despite an objection, and (2) refusing to participate in clarification or discussion, I ask that the original wording be restored.

User:Pigsonthewing ought to know better how to participate in a discussion and respond to objections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

EP claims to have "started a discussion"; all he really did was restate his objection. Not one single editor agreed with him, yet he took that lack of agreement as a green light to continue reverting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I note that no one supported your position, yet you took that as a "green light to continue reverting". I made an effort to discuss. I opened a discussion and also requested clarification, then I waited for five days, yet in those five days you failed to respond either to the discussion or my direct request for clarification of your position. This demonstrates a lack of willingness to discuss. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So let me get this straight ... Pigsonthewing requests that someone add clarification to a help page, EP thinks it's unnecessary, so when Pigs makes the change EP reverts it? EP does this look like a policy page to you or something? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks as though you're responding solely to edit history, and not the change itself. The requested clarification is on the subsequent Help page. The page being altered is about copyright law, not about where to save files. The added text makes a difficult paragraph (so stated on the page itself) even harder for a beginner to read by inter-mixing two different issues into the same paragraph. It does not actually clarify the subject of the paragraph, but makes it harder for a beginner to understand. Surely the point of a Beginner's Guide is to make things simple for a beginner? That is: How does adding comments about where to save files clarify international copyright law? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Not having any opinion on the original subject of the dispute, I will react only to the technical side of the matter: It is always the change that needs to be confirmed by consensus, otherwise the previous status quo has to be kept. So if there is a change suggested, and somebody disagrees, discussion is needed. If the outcome of the discussion is clear support of the change, either because the opposing party was convinced and changed their opinion or because they were outvoted, the change can take place. Otherwise it cannot. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Koavf deliberately breaking page format

I have blocked Koavf (talk • contribs) for deliberately breaking the formatting of page content. They made this edit which resulted in a display that did not match the original, so I reverted with an edit summary explaining: those changes do not display correctly.

Rather than discuss, or ask about the problems, they immediately restored the broken display, stating that the display was fine on their end, ignoring the fact the problems had been found in the edit.

Since this was a deliberate switch to a page which did not display correctly, I consider the edit to be vandalism, and for this have placed a three day block. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• EncycloPetey: I believe this is well enough, and indicative of a long pattern of misconduct. You have once again banned established editors for petty disputes over page formatting. I call for a vote of confidence in your administrator powers. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  No one has been banned. A person has been blocked for a short span of time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

My read on the situation: I personally agree with the principle of using {{uc}} for these when possible as Koavf is correct that it is semantically more valid, but the wikicode attempted unfortunately wasn't working on other setups. It works on mine though. (I'm curious to know what browser and machine EP was using to view it—this could indicate a problem with the template itself. I could do some testing on this.) But Koavf was edit-warring with an admin here, rather than defaulting to a public discussion to resolve a dispute, and that's a pretty well-known breach of general wiki etiquette—something that Koavf should definitely be aware of, given his extensive and famous history in the WMF community. So, I think it's fair to say Koavf is in the wrong in his engagement in edit-warring. But it happens—we get angry sometimes—so EP having set a mere 3 days to chill out, rather than an outright permanent or long-term block, seems reasonable enough to me. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Upper case was not the issue; I left that template in place on a couple of other pages from the same work. Please see my comments to Koavf on their talk page. The problems came from the replacement of a table with a running header constrained by an enclosing div tag while using {{!}} to create a vertical dividing line within the template's central field. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: careful with how you use the word vandalism: that word has one meaning, acts that intentionally aim to hinder the project as a whole from reaching its objectives. What happened here was perhaps edit warring, but it certainly wasn't vandalism. Koavf was trying to fix a display issue they saw on their side. Compatibility issues are especially hard to solve; I see no evidence of deliberately breaking page format. The issue here at hand is behaviour rather than content, so I will not comment on the merits of these specific edits, further than noting that none were vandalism.

Furthermore, rollback should only be used for vandalism. Since it does not give any explanations of the revert, it should only be used for edits that are clearly in bad faith. Which these as I said above weren't. More concerning, you have already been reproached misuse of rollback at least once at WS:AN. So my first question is to you: 1) can you commit to in the future refraining from rollbacking non-vandalism, for which you have already been admonished?

On the merits of the block: a 3-day cooling-off block for edit warring with pay attention in the summaries, is not completely out of bounds. However, on this occasion as in others, it seems to me you are a bit trigger-happy with the block button.

1. You have here blocked Koavf for 2 (two) reverts. Reverting twice should not be done, but I'm not sure it warrants a block (or one of three days; WS:BP says one for EW except for egregious cases).
2. No one can edit-war alone. You too were edit-warring with them. As far as I can see, you bear as much blame as them in this case: both of you did not engage in discussion and instead re-reverted. There was about as much justification to block yourself as him. (@SnowyCinema: it was not only an editor edit-warring with an administrator, it was also an administrator edit-warring with a user, which is worse given administrators are held to higher standards.)
3. No admin should ever block a non-vandal they are in personal conflict with. Never, and especially not if that conflict is an ongoing edit war. In doing so an admin is about certain to be influenced by their own grievances. So my second question is to you: 2) can you commit to in the future refraining from blocking non-vandals you are in personal conflict with, and instead to bring the issue first to the community?

I would like to remind both of you (@Koavf this is for you too) that reverting is not a substitute for discussion. If at some point you find yourself making your second identical revert on the same page in a few minutes, just don't. There is zero point edit-warring. The way of collaboration isn't re-reverting; it's stepping back, and asking for wider opinions on the issue at hand (WS:S being the forum for that). Neither of you tried to engage in discussion on this issue.

If the answer to either of my bolded questions is not "yes", or if EP makes and then breaks one of these commitments, then I think they are not capable of wielding the tools responsibly and I would support a vote of confidence. — Alien  3
3 3 10:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I used the word "vandalism" as defined in our own WS:Blocking policy is: "deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the library." When someone is informed that a change isn't working properly, and their immediate response is to put the problematic edit back, with an edit summary indicating that they know about the problem, that is deliberate. Where are you finding the definition you've used? WS:BP recommends one day for first-time offenses, but Koavf has been previously blocked. I followed the recommended steps as outlined in our blocking policy, including that I posted here because I felt the block would be controversial. Which part of the blocking policy did I not adhere to?

With regard to your second question, you can see on the Scriptorium examples where I have brought disputes to the community. In WS:Scriptorium#Beginner's guide to copyright missing a key issue, I asked for community feedback. When no member of the community responded in the Scriptorium, I proceeded with a thread here: #User:Pigsonthewing reverts while failing to discuss, requesting admin comment. When the edits are not vandalism, I have brought the issue to the community.

With regard to your first question, I used "undo". I see that one of my edits registers as rollback, which I attribute to a misclick. The two options display right above each other in the page change comparison window, and there is no verification request if I accidentally select rollback when undo was intended. It was not my intention to use rollback here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

On "deliberate": Koavf deliberately reinstated these edits, yes. What you have not shown is a "deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the library" (emphasis mine). Browser/OS/&c compatibility issues mean that it's perfectly plausible for one version to work for you but not him, and for another version to work for him but not you. You have not shown any evidence of intentionally making edits to reduce the quality of WS.

Thank you for the precision on rollback.

I have asked you two questions, though, and would appreciate direct answers (as opposed to general discussion of the topic):

• Do you commit to not using rollback for possibly controversial reverts? (nb - intentionally, that is. Although it apparently wasn't in this specific case, I'd still like the precision in general)
• Do you commit to not blocking an editor you are in conflict with?

Thanks. — Alien  3
3 3 19:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

For the first question, yes. For the second, that is too broad for me to agree to as worded. If the editor is in conflict with me and others, then I do not believe the restriction should necessarily apply. There are multiple reasons listed at WS:Blocking policy, and I do not believe it would be in the best interests of the community if I agreed not to block someone who has repeatedly violated copyright, repeatedly violated policy, or made personal attacks, simply because they have yelled at me. There have been periods of time where I was the only admin active here for several hours, and even posts to this page can sit for a full day before the first admin responds. If you believe that some form of your request should be added to the blocking policy, then that should be discussed with the community; it is not currently there. For the issue of whether Koavf's reversion was vandalism, it sounds as though we are arguing the definition of policy and disagree on that point, but I did verify the definition of vandalism before preceding with the block and post here. I rarely describe edits as vandalism aside from new accounts and IPs who arrive and immediately begin destructive editing. I do take that issue seriously. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I am using the exact definition of policy that you used. You have not explained how reinstating an edit that looks fine to the person making it is a "deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the library".

My question on blocks may be a bit broad. Here is a more specific one:

• Do you commit to not blocking a regular WS editor you are edit warring with?

Also, a more open-ended question:

• Why do you think, precisely, you are less to blame than Koavf? Both of you have edit-warred, reverting without engaging in discussion, both because what you saw in your browser appeared to contradict what the other saw. If he deserved a block, why did you not?

— Alien  3
3 3 20:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The policy section your are using concerns article editing conflicts, such as content disputes, not vandalism. Vandalism is a separate concern. Per your original post: "No admin should ever block a non-vandal they are in personal conflict . . .", so the disagreement between us is over whether this is vandalism. Vandalism is reason for blocking, but reverting to previous state to correct a problem is not vandalism. And to quote precedent from an earlier discussion above: "It is always the change that needs to be confirmed by consensus, otherwise the previous status quo has to be kept." --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Checkuser done

Hi, as requested via MediaWiki:Checkuser-summary, I want to inform you that I just granted myself CU rights for 10 minutes and performed a check on رقم شيخ (talk • contribs). It’s a cross-wiki spammer (locked by me), and his account here is it’s latest addition to his SUL account. My aim was find possible sleepers and block his used OPs, if he used one. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

User:2001:FD8:17A2:1E91:B14A:671C:C7C7:C2C1

Reporting IP for vandalism. See Norwich Livestock Market Act 2025. Please block them and rollback their edits. ToxicPea (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Rollback done. Not blocked as no further edits. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Alien  3
3 3 09:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Recent unblock request

I am just informing that there has been an unblock request at User talk:2601:243:D01:1F20:94FB:59A8:24AD:1F01 which I denied.

A few weeks ago I performed a range block because of repeating problems with these IPs, some of which can be seen at Special:Contributions/2601:243:d01:1f00::/56 and others can be found here and here.

I denied the unblock because 1) no reasons for unblocking were specified and 2) I did not find it trustworthy in the light of a parallel unblocking request at w:User talk:2601:243:D01:1F20:D47E:2C27:5B7:C8A4.

Meanwhile, the unblock request was repeated at User talk:2601:243:D01:1F20:C41B:DEFB:8A22:E4B2, this time with the "reason" specified: "because I'm sorry also". I personally do not see there anything which would change my mind, but I am presenting it here in case other admins viewed it differently. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Endorsed. A fundamental requirement on a collaborative project is the facility to engage in functional dialogue, and for an unblock request the self-reflection to actually articulate what you did to get blocked in the first place. Neither of which appear to be present here. The block range is maybe a little wide for my taste, and the duration maybe a little longer then I would have set, but still well within reason for persistent problems from a IP-hopping source. Xover (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)