To sum up my stance on the whole thing:

Blocking IPs from PR2: A very bad idea IMHO. Many great contributors start out as IPs and some contributors don't want to create an account for various reasons. There is a small danger of abuse, but creating an additional account isn't exactly a hurdle either for someone who really wants to abuse the system. The only way to hinder abuse is an attentive community.

Making it impossible to switch to "done" immediately: In the past we used this on de.ws for empty pages or pages with very little text (chapter titles for example). Having to proofread chapter titles twice is a small inconvenience, I can live with that. It's more bothersome when existing projects need to be converted to PR2. It appears that only bots can do this now. A little annoying, but on the other hand the number of projects to be converted is limited and only a small number of users actually do this task.

Category "without text": Great idea, but I'd rather give it another name. Some of these pages do in fact contain text, but they do not need to be transcribed and proofread. Handwritten notes, library notes and stamps, advertisements, pictures containing text.

Buggy software: That's to be expected. As long as bugs get fixed, I don't mind.

What bugs me about many of the software changes is the assumption of bad faith. Where does this need to control everything suddenly come from? To my knowledge there have never been problems with manipulation of the proofread status. There have sometimes been issues with quality: users overlooked many errors and still set the proofread flag. But restrictive software can't fix this.

And while statistics are a nice thing to have, there are some unfortunate consequences. All of a sudden people pay a lot of attention to numbers and are suspicious of every little thing that might give someone else an advantage. That's sad, because Wikisource isn't a competition.

Disclaimer: I contribute to de.wikisource, but my opinion is not representative for everyone there.

Tosca