Wikisource

Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2018

< 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 requests

Bureaucrat requests

Page (un)protection requests

Other

Account needs blocking

'Chinese people taste good' is basically a vandal. Neils51 (talk)

@Neils51: No such user. Can you provide a link? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Sorry I used the wrong page to report this. The user has been blocked. Neils51 (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

CAT:CSD has 20 pages awaiting speedy deletion including a couple of out-of-scope ones. Could a kind administrator please process the category? Green Giant (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I can't edit it but could someone delete User:176.147.224.55/mixing~sailors.js, which appears to be a nonsense page? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  Done — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Green Giant (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for protection of template:cl-act-paragraph on "sanity" grounds

Or to put it in criteria terms; Preservation of integrity of texts relying on it. After some lengthy analysis what seemed to be a logic failure was finally eliminated, which meant it wasn't rendering certain content.

A replacement is under development, but still needs testing. In the meanwhile I think it would be reasonable to prevent further edits to an already complex template, partly on the grounds of my own sanity, and partly so that changes to (such as swapping in any replacement) are only done with consensus, once the replacement has been extensively debugged. As a side comment I will note some other wiki's use Pending Changes on high use templates, I'm surprised that currently English Wikisource doesn't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Declined on the following grounds:
a) it is marked as deprecated and therefore no changes should be being made to it;<
b) it is under discussion at WS:PD;
c) it is not a high-use template with < 500 uses across all namespaces.
with respect to the comment on Pending Changes and high use templates: once a template has proven to be stable and is being used across multiple works, our de facto policy has been to protect the template and restrict editing to Sysops only. Once a template is protected proposed changes should be worked out in the Sandbox. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

User deleting COPYVIO notices after being warned not to

User:Slowking4 has removed a COPYVIO notice from The Coming of Wireless twice, once after being warned not to. I am definitely involved, so I ask for some other admin to take action.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have asked Slowking4 to participate in the conversation, rather than undo the conversation starter. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Need to import Template:MongolUnicode from Wikipedia

Hi,

To display correctly some Manchu characters in A Manchu Grammar, I need to import the w:Template:MongolUnicode from Wikipedia while preserving the author credit of this template. Thanks in advance.

Assassas77 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done.--Jusjih (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Question

I am looking at

https://ia801407.us.archive.org/9/items/miscellaneousba00bartgoog/miscellaneousba00bartgoog.pdf

The book is public domain since it was published in 1918. However, there are watermarks everywhere. Can this be uploaded? Thanks.

Artix Kreiger (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, however there is a better scan at https://archive.org/details/miscellaneousbab00bart, which doesn't have the google stuff all through it. The images are also better. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lightly problematic user RoboDork / WolfHolwer

To note that users "RoboDork" and "WolfHolwer" are the same, and undertaking light-irritation editing. I have blocked the first for a week, and indef'd the latter account. I have left a warning on the first, though don't think that it will make an iota of difference. If they come back with a new guise, I suggest that we look to get checkusers done and start blocking the underlying IPs, where possible. We may need to do some protection on templates if they continue to fiddle in nuisance areas. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a Mass rollback

I would like to request a massive rollback of my contributions to Main, Page and Template namespace back to KNOWN versions of the relevant pages as they stood at the time of this edit https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Constitution_Amendment_Act_1993.djvu/4&oldid=7199365

The reason being that the edits subsequent to this are for the most part good faith efforts to fix Linter indicated concerns. However it's been indicated elsewhere that there are other approaches are being considered, and thus it would be impractical to have a lone contributor however well intentioned making 'fix' edits that had not been appropriately co-ordinated, on a per Index basis if needed.

It is therefore requested to roll back my well intentioned efforts to KNOWN versions so that a seemingly competent team can implement ONE set of comprehensive patches universally across all affected works, instead of a lone contributor implementing page by page fixes, which may be inconsistent with the overall style used in a particular Index.

The alternative would be for someone other than myself with a LOT of spare time, to review every single edit made since the one mentioned, to ensure that any "fixes" were not of themselves creating more problems. I honestly don't see that reasonably happening on an appropriate timescale. A suggestion to re-set the proofreading status of affected Page: 's was considered counter productive, but I don't see how there would be a way to check that a 'fix' has remained stable, without additional reviewers. And I will note that in making some fixes, even with the best of intentions it is entirely possible additional concerns have inadvertently been introduced.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Generally, self-requested blocks are not agreed to by admins on this project, but in this instance, given my lack of competence it may be wise to consider a voluntary 'calm-down' period. Let's say 2 weeks to a month to let there be an agreed set of Linter "fixes" on a per Index basis, if needed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your Linter fix efforts. Sorry if they turn out to have been wasted, though I doubt that's the case. I don't think it would be appropriate to rollback anything unless/until a concrete solution is found and a rollback is seen as essential to it. Hesperian 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Hesperian. My comment, to which you allude, was about a bot request to do a broad-ranging task, and for such the community should reach consensus (as per Wikisource:Bots), rather than an "eyes wide approach" to manual, sensible fixes, which you are doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent deletion and block

Can someone please check me on a recent deletion and block I made regarding User:SquamishPolitical? Please advise on block time, and whether the deleted page should be protected. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
For anyone legitimately operating from a logged-in account, I would always add a {{welcome}} message (hope!), and a toss-up whether to add a {{subst:test}}. If someone re-adds a deleted off-topic page, then a little extra emphasis is never astray if you think that it is outside of good faith. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The subject matter read more like a "news" story, but seemed to me like an opportunity to dish dirt. I did not seek to look into details at all. I just knew it was way beyond scope and should probably be taken down. And the fact that my initial warning & deletion was ignored didn't give me a good feel. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

mul:The Morals of Chess

Can an admin import the text from Multilingual Wikisource to preserve the original contributor info? I think, the text should have been uploaded initially to English Wikisource. Ankry (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If a djvu is needed, there is one here : Internet Archive bub_gb_cCYCAAAAYAAJ Assassas77 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ankry:   transwikied — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Jessewaugh

The user Jessewaugh is a bit out of control with abusive language. He seems convinced that I am Michael Mandiberg of Art and Feminism fame. I am not. I am Canadian, just like the beer commercial. Feel free to checkuser me.198.58.173.226 15:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's try ending that thread completely, from both of you. Both of you are running into dangerous territory, IMO.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WS:APD request

Per WS:APD, I requesting the autopatrolled permission. I understand Wikisource policies and guidelines as well as the copyright policy.

Thank you for consideration. Let me know if you have any follow up questions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 20:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: I have a quick review of some edits, and I am currently not willing to assign autopatrolled, as I don't think that you have yet grasped our Wikisource:Style guide. And that is more due to our failure as a community, we have not suitably patrolled and given you sufficient guidance in your edits. Your adding of paragraph-leading indents [1] and the categorisation such as Category:Politics of the United States/New York Times and Carl Schurz are both contrary to our style. We need to lift our game in patrolling yours and other people's edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
billinghurst, fair is fair. I accept your judgement and will try to move forward in a constructive way. Thanks for letting me know, and please let me know in the future if any of my other edits are contrary to policy. If there is anything else I can do to improve Wikisource experience, I will gladly do so! Thanks again! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 01:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said, it isn't your failure but our community's. I will admit to have patrolled less, though will plead other duties. I know I did some in your early days and will look to get into some of your edits and to provide some feedback; though my time critical commitments are still there. And don't sweat it, we use the marker as an indicator of where we see a user contributing and when we need to follow/stop following them around. We have our elements of complexity and we do like to support new users, and this truly helps. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Remind me please

of the best way to roll back edits due to vandalization when the roll back options only limit you to a certain number [2]. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Manually replace the page contents with the contents of the last good revision? That's the best I can think of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Three ways and depending on what you already know, or what you want to do. Go to the history, then either
  • select the first and last of your choice, and press "compare select revisions" and once there, you can just undo; OR
  • click on the date and time of the edit to which you wish to return, and it will give you the Permalink view, and clicking edit will edit that version; so click and save (notice the warning); OR
  • click on one of the prev links (last best edit, bad edit) and you should have an edit link in the diff to the good version to which you want to return
As a note, the reason you don't get a rollback for all is there are two different IP editors, though on the same /24. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So, with the first option, clicking "undo" in the last edit (right column) will revert back to Htonl's edit (left column)? The right column will go back to the left? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Think I got it, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, when you have purposefully selected the beginning of the comparative range, the undo does from last to your select point; when you come into a last edit (usually from RC), by default, the range is just the last edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Pseudobot -> Bot user

At some point in the past (time unknown) there has been a systemic descriptive and link change in Mediawiki for what we define as bot users, with the name having become Pseudobot. This was showing at Special:ListGroupRights and with components through Special:UserRights. As our naming is pretty entrenched, I have made the cosmetic changes to update the required names and links to "bot user(s)"

If users want to see affected pages with raw code, then remember that you can use uselang=qqx in index.php urls to see the underlying code. For a view of all messages see Special:AllMessages. Ping me if there are any questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilters update

I recently gave trusted wikidenizen MusikAnimal abuse filter rights as they have access to the backend of Wikimedia performance tests and some excellent abuse writing knowledge and skills, and most importantly the willingness to assist. For that last, MusikAnimal, we thank you for your assistance. They have done a review of our existing, running filters and done some excellent efficiency tuning. So they should be working better for the system, and quite possibly more effectively in the tasks that they are set.

MA has also set up their bot to run regular reports to identify filters that haven't been hit in a while. From this new report I have disabled the Chinese blogger, though left the others running as they are specific and impactful, though others opinions are valuable here. As a general thought, I was thinking that a filter that hasn't had a hit in 3 years should be considered to be redundant unless it is an area that effects quality of our works, or has a significant impact upon our time and recover. I would appreciate others opinions. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Index:An Anglo-Chinese vocabulary of the Ningpo dialect.djvu

Hi there,

I reuploaded on Commons a newer version of An Anglo-Chinese Vocabulary of the Ningpo Dialect from Internet Archive. It is less blurry. Could an administrator do the transfer from Index:An Anglo-Chinese Vocabulary of the Ningpo Dialect.pdf to Index:An Anglo-Chinese vocabulary of the Ningpo dialect.djvu. Thanks in advance. Assassas77 (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. It is unclear to me what you would like to do. If you mean to move the (few) proofread pages, everyone can do that.— Mpaa (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
:O I just learned something new today then! I never thought of the Page: namespace as a regular namespace. Well... now, can the Index:An Anglo-Chinese Vocabulary of the Ningpo Dialect.pdf be deleted ? Assassas77 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
done— Mpaa (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — Mpaa (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Admins might want to double-check their user rights. For some reason, the system today decided that I was no longer an autopatroller. If you are an admin, you can fix this under your user rights management. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. It seems the issue only applies to rollback edits. My rollback edits are not being marked as "patrolled" even though I'm an admin and have Autopatroller rights active. Is this affecting anyone else? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: This is affecting many of us over at Wikidata as well; there is a Project chat discussion there to that effect started by User:Okkn. Mahir256 (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that this was mentioned in the Wikitech news this wee (see WS:S) and has been resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

restoring colours in indexes

Can an admin, please, make a non-null, but not significant edit to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template (eg. revert the most recent Billinghurst's change)? According to Tpt's explanation in phab:T198470#4413233 this should restore page colours in all index pages (and is faster than purging all of them). Ankry (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't be required. I made that change after I saw the request. Changes will take time to propagate through I suspect. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I've missed that. Please close this request. Ankry (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I need help reviewing a Global RFC

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please delete all "not proofread" pages from Index:History of Oregon volume 1.djvu

Would a kind admin please delete all the pages marked blue/"problematic" or pink/"not proofread" at this work? I have now overwritten the file with a much better scan from Internet Archive, which has a much better OCR layer. Those pages are a mess. (Please note, there are a number of pages that have been proofread, so don't delete them all!) Thank you, -Pete (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

upcoming admin confirmations

Hi,

Just flagging that I'll be on vacation with no internet access for a couple of weeks from Saturday, so I will not be in a position to close the June admin confirmations on 1 July.

I was late to close the May ones, and the community jumped in and closed them, start the new discussions, and left me to do the archiving etc. Happy to do the same this month if you want -- do what you do, and I'll clean up any loose ends when I'm back online in mid-July.

Cheers all, love your work!

Hesperian 01:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have closed four as confirmred, though left AdamBMorgan's as it will not be confirmed. I will leave that to a 'crat who can then request removal to stewards at m:SRP. There are no July confirmations to list. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Requested.— Mpaa (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And done.— Mpaa (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Promotional article

The article Godrej Alive is clearly created for promotion of real estate. This is visible from its language. Nor it is anything of importance that is needed on this project anyway. I think it should be deleted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't require notification here. If you think that it is spammy, please mark it with{{delete|spam}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for informing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

m:Community health initiative/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking

“ The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently in development of partial blocks. Sitewide blocks are not always the appropriate response to some situations. Smaller, more tactical blocks may defuse situations while retaining constructive contributors. The goal of this project is to give wiki administrators a more robust set of tools to be able to better respond to different user conflict situations.

Please discuss this project at m:Talk:Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, and upload blocking.

”

Alert to the admin community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Significant childish abuse from IP

Please see Template:Ip. Sorry I'm not sure if there is a better way to report this. Chrissymad (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chrissymad, I see that a steward has intervened. Seems the best way to have acted. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandal

User:Fuericide_Bomber. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Kind of you to provide a pre-emptive warning; I would have skipped straight to the banning. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have blocked him if I were an admin--he's clearly here only to vandalize. It's an en.wp practice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
LTA troll, block on sight, on site . Tell stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
... what is LTA? Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
long term abuse — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Index:Ossendowki - From President to Prison.djvu

Can an admin delete the redirect? It is not needed and not editable. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done — Hrishikes (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks!

An IP 66.87.150.50 (talk • contribs) is making personal attacks on my talk page. Could someone please block and/or globally lock this IP address? IanDBeacon (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another IP is involved to - 66.87.150.202 (talk • contribs). Someone block the host too. IanDBeacon (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
IPs have been locked globally. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Billinghurst interface rights

@Hesperian: or other crats. Would you please assign me interface rights, and say for expiry in a week. I have a gadget that needs some fixing. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

request for a move

After a discussion I wanted to move a page to its previous title Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/A Supplement to Mons. Pingré’s Memoir on the Parallax of the Sun (now redirect), but I moved it to Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/A Supplement to Mons. Pingré’s Memoir on the Parallax of the Sun28 by mistake and it seems I am not allowed to move it once more. May I ask for moving it? Thank you very much and apologies for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits

Perhaps somebody could keep an eye on Editing Wikipedia, there have been a couple of blankings by an IP editor recently. I left a note at the IP's talk page, but I'm going to be offline for a while. -Pete (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have poked a soft protection onto it for a year. Generally no need for it to be edited. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, thank you -- the soft protection seems entirely sensible. But the IP block, to me, seems excessive; how can we know whether it was malicious, or an innocent mistake? There were only two edits. Also, since I already took a "assume good faith" approach on the IP's talk page, if it was an innocent mistake, they are likely to be confused by the mixed messages. Could you unblock? I'm happy to keep an eye on the IP in the next few weeks (though I'll be offline this weekend). -Pete (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a one day block, so I wouldn't fuss it. Once I will AGF for a test, twice like that and I will put a shot across the bows, especially as it places a marker against the IP address for any future instance. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent block

I have just blocked an IP address for vandalism. I will look into block procedure more closely, but am open to suggestions about how to handle this one. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, in regards to that particular IP you may want to see this - [[3]]. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Knocking on your door. I am sure you are aware of my lack of confidence where blocking is concerned. Looking for some guidance here. I'll take any lumps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I changed a few things. In general, we don't block IPs forever, since they do usually get shuffled around. Also, I blocked talk page and email access; we wouldn't usually do that, but this wasn't vandalism of main space pages, it was abuse of a contributor, and there's no need to give them talk page or email access to continue it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and for the explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@IanDBeacon: I like your sort of bothersomeness. Please keep it up.   — billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Karel Čapek

I would like to ask to move Author:Karel Capek to his full name Author:Karel Čapek (now a redirect). Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for move

I would like to ask to move back Author:Václav Jebavý to Author:Otakar Březina per discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Pseudonyms. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Fix move

As far as I can tell Author:Ellis Paxson Oberholzer was not moved correctly (preserving history). It was recreated at Author:Ellis Paxon Oberholtzer in an attempt to fix the spelling of the author's name, but is still inconsistent with Wikipedia's choice (which is not necessarily a problem). --Azertus (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

IP edits

Can an administrator please review/block 2001:56a:76ec:e800:e0ae:62c5:d3ce:6c10? See, e.g., [4][5][6] My request for admin help cc'd at WS scriptorium here Apt-ark (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Need revdel on IP edits

You'll see my reverts. EncycloPetey, are you still on call? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, he's back, on my talk page. You don't have to revdelete that nonsense since it's just a bunch of blah blah. I don't know if you have CU, but running that is always a good idea. Also a good idea: semi-protecting these talk pages from this person. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Note that I have gone through the page history and hidden revisions, usernames, and edit summaries for edits that fall into categories like threats of physical violence, usernames intended to attack or harass, or edit summaries or revert edits that would reveal same. There was quite a cluster of these in January / February this year. Most of the changes were just nonsense or childish insults (i.e. revert + ignore), but for the more serious issues we should be liberal in application of hiding diffs, usernames, or edit summaries (as appropriate). In any case, marking this as resolved. --Xover (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Just flaggin'

Hi, just flagging for probity/scrutiny purposes: I closed and archived my own annual confirmation[7]. Cheers, Hesperian 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

The Wikimedia Foundation security team is implementing a new password policy and requirements. You can learn more about the project on MediaWiki.org.

These new requirements will apply to new accounts and privileged accounts. New accounts will be required to create a password with a minimum length of 8 characters. Privileged accounts will be prompted to update their password to one that is at least 10 characters in length.

These changes are planned to be in effect on December 13th. If you think your work or tools will be affected by this change, please let us know on the talk page.

Thank you!

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for move

I have moved Act of the 29th of February 1920 setting forth the constitution and jurisdiction of the Senate to Act of the 29th of February 1920 setting forth the Constitution and jurisdiction of the Senate, which was a mistake, as the title in fact does not refer to "the Constitution" but to "the constitution ... of the Senate". May I ask an admin to move the page back, please? Thank you and apologies for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done as requested —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Spam whitelist request

Requesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSGCLBt1juo as it appears on Page:Code Swaraj - Carl Malamud - Sam Pitroda.djvu/215. -Einstein95 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done BethNaught (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for move vandalisim cleanup...

In cleaning up vandalism over on English Wikivoyage I also found a user that's done a LOT of move vandalism here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Syed_shamsuzzaman

Thanks in advance for the cleanup, and I would also request an indeterminate block on this user, given that they appear to have vandalised a number of wikis. [8]

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Beth and I cleaned up the issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Gadgetised GoogleOCR tool

Hi to all. From a discussion in one of our help spaces, it was identified that there was an "improved/better" OCR tool around and in use (GoogleOCR). I have quickly added this as a gadget in the development section, and just poked some text at it. We should assess that it is a better tool, and if it is then we probably should retire the old tool. The text at MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleOCR could do with some improvement and probably the insertion of file:GoogleOcr toolbar button.png. I will look at it again when I have some quality time. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

From https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Google_OCR:
It is used on Wikisources in languages with scripts that are not supported by the standard Tesseract OCR system. It should not be used where that system can be used instead, as there is a limit to the number of requests we can make against Google's services.
as a note.— Mpaa (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
As answered by @Samwilson: in a Wikisource global chat, the limit for Google Cloud Vision API (i.e., our Google OCR button) is 1800 requests per minute. This limit can only be crossed by mass-scale ocr by multiple users simultaneously. So I don't think we need to be concerned about this "limit". Hrishikes (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mpaa, @Hrishikes: Yup, it's true. We only once got over three requests per minute in the last month. If we want to use Google in place of phetools, we can do so and probably not worry about excessive usage (given that it's still just an ad hoc thing; if we wanted to automate whole works being run though it that might require more discussion, although would probably also be fine). Sam Wilson 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
If we are running whole works through, I would guess that we would limit these, either as priority, or rate-limiting, as they are hardly urgent. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: yeah, and even if we did we probably wouldn't be doing it all that often. We could do a 500 page work every day, for instance, and not get close to the limits. :) I'm in favour of retiring the old gadget. Sam Wilson 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As pywikibot runs pages sequentially, as long as we run with some due consideration it shouldn't particularly matter for the tool, as the bot usually runs at slower rates than pt0 or pt:1 anyway. Just make sure that we aren't running multiple parallel high-rate bot sessions. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Someone to assist a new user

Is there someone there who will be able to try and communicate with Rafaeladasilvamelo (talk • contribs), as my methodology is failing. There are a range of, what I consider, problematic edits: empty page creations with just headers (now deleted), unusual editing (reverted), incorrect use of headings of works of where we have a parent (updated, and relinked) additions of text directly when we have the scans available. I have no doubt that this is a good faith editor, it is just levels of editing outside of our existing style. It needs someone with a different approach than me, or simply someone other than me. Thanks if there is someone who can assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems continue. The user is now working within A Dictionary of Saintly Women and has now been informed and prodded twice about the presence of scans, though wishes to copy and paste text to subpages; in addition we get headerless pages, headers that are empty, pages with one word of text, no prev/next, or simply poor quality proofreading. The user does not communicate, and where communication is attempted they have removed that communications (we have had four admins there communicating).

We are not getting quality work, and we are getting work that needs a high level of support to bring it close to standard. I have given up even trying with the worst pages and am now just deleting them where there are multiple errors (indicator of what is happening). The choices are to either let poor quality work exist, or we need a means to improve the quality of the work, either by the user, or by other community. Usually with this sort of editing we have been able to communicate and support users to are preferred means of editing and style, though that has not worked in this instance. If we are unable to get an improvement, and we are unable to get communication, then we may to intervene directly. It seems that we are moving to intervention. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This issues continue in other areas. I am proposing to block this user after issuing them with a final warning. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I should add that I've been through all cross-wiki contributions of this editor that are in English. Most of them had to be reverted either by me or another editor had found them first. The contributions to ptWP were more challenging to assess as my Portuguese is extremely limited, but I note that many contributions there were also reverted, corrected or amended in some way. I am not averse to the suggestion of an enforced break from editing here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have just blocked Rafaeladasilvamelo for three days, and stated that their editing is not working. Special:Contributions/Rafaeladasilvamelo shows a continuation of problematic editing, and one that it does not show the community is addressing and resolving. Edits that change the context of a page, and without edit summary; creation of subpages that are more like categories; pages that are scan-supported where the text alone is added; texts that are evidently text-supported though not uploaded, where they are copying and pasting, then putting images of tables. The work is not of a standard, and the user does not wish to converse on these matters, despite numerous attempts by numerous administrators.

I believe that these Some facts concerning the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. Presented to a hearing of legislative committees. Albany, April 5, 1910 pages should be deleted. If we cannot have the conversation with the user, and seek suitable changes, then we should extend the block. Also note Special:DeletedContributions/Rafaeladasilvamelo — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Request protection of Main Page templates

The following discussion is closed:

Templates protected, mainly to +sysop.

According to the very first point under Wikisource:Protection_policy#Special_cases “The main page should always be protected…”, yet this edit took place today. Some care and attention, please? (Normally Phe-bot is the sole updater of Template:ALL TEXTS!) 114.73.248.245 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have place soft protection on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  Comment To fellow administrators, I have up'd the protection on a couple of templates that won't need updating. I have a question about Template:Highlights, should this be sitting at semi/soft? If we are unlikely to change it, then we should be protecting it further. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Nobody has edited that template since 2013, so it doesn't get changed much. I have therefore upped the protection to +sysop. If anybody disagrees feel free to undo. --Xover (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/2018&oldid=10842340"