Open main menu

Request for unprotection of Is There a Santa Claus?

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please unprotect Is There a Santa Claus?, a versions page. This page had been a text page before it was moved at 01:43, 13 June 2011 to Is There a Santa Claus? (New York Sun), which has been protected for integrity since 09:30, 23 March 2007. ‎Is There a Santa Claus? should be unprotected since it has been changed to versions page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this logic, so   Done . Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA

Hey could someone please block Bill Dance 22 without TPA, he's the w:en:WP:LTA/DENVER perp. --IanDBeacon (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@IanDBeacon: user is now globally locked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock-puppet

The user Zesharn Mahmood [who has been disruptively editing] is most likely a sockpuppet of the globally blocked accountZeshan Mahmood known for disruptive pro-Pakistan editing. Please see if this can dealt with. You might also want to look at the Commons SPA case. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The edits were all appropriately dealt with at the time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion / block request

If an admin could delete (and protect) my user talk page and block the IP who created it (Special:Contributions/2605:3E80:D00:10:0:0:0:E), it'd be appreciated. I don't edit here, so if you can make it so my user pages can only be edited by confirmed users, that would be best. Only (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The protection request is somewhat unorthodox, but in the circumstances,   Done . I'll leave the blocking question for someone more familiar with IPv6 ranges. BethNaught (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Bethnaught: thanks for the deletion/protection. I get random "enemies" who leave these harassing comments at my user talk pages throughout the Wikimedia projects on projects I never edit, so it's better if they're protected so those users can't create those pages. Only (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Abuse filter user page de-redlinked

Prompted by the discussion at User talk:Mpaa#Question about User:Abuse filter I've gone ahead and created it based on the equivalent Wikidata page. Background on the account (which may have slipped under the radar for many) can be found in Tech News: 2019-02. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

LTA

Pages: WP:AN, Rfpp, AIV
WP:LTA: Special:Contributions/92.40.249.0/24

@Tegel: just blocked the LTA for this. The user also created some weird pages that seem to mirror random internal Wikipedia discussions. Some of those project discussions are ongoing, so I don't know if we should notify them there. Either way, the pages should eventually be deleted after review. –MJLTalk 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deleted all three as out of scope for us. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't page blanking

Does anyone know why this edit was incorrectly flagged as "page blanking"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to try and answer that, but I do not have the current user rights to view private filters (nor probably should I). @Billinghurst: could you take a look at Special:AbuseFilter/9, please? –MJLTalk 22:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Only "abuse filter editors" can view this; i.e. about four active editors. Hesperian 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of this, and that's why I pinged Billinghurst. My suspicion is that this issue may have occurred on another wiki as well as ours, and he would be the one best suited for that I'd reckon.
If there was an edit filter helper right like on some other wikis, I'd probably would be interested in having it. That's not the case, and I don't feel I am established enough to even consider requesting the abuse filter right. Small note: I'm pretty sure admins can view as well. At least they can on enwiki. Every project is different, so idk...MJLTalk 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Admins can self-include themselves in the group "abuse filter editor". — Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I wasn't totally off base then. –MJLTalk 02:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The edit filter, for some reason, is calculating old and new page size as 0 for all edits. The abuse filter does not tag edits by editors with sufficiently many edits; if it did, the abuse filter would be tagging every single edit on this site :S —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Edit: not all edits. Not sure why, but some diffs show old_wikitext and new_wikitext as blank, which would explain the calculation of new_size = 0 and the subsequent flagging as page blanking. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Current hypothesis: issue affects all edits in Page namespace. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Anyway, I've posted at phab:T219514Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
And they've fixed it! ProofreadPage extension was using an old method of passing text, which was no longer supported by AbuseFilter; ProofreadPage has been updated and there should be no more false positives. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Confession time - I made a mistake...

For reference, I managed to blank something by mistake when (unexpectedly) logged out:- https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:Records_of_Woman.pdf&oldid=9186723

I noticed immediately and repaired the mistake, but still noting it here for transparency reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

American Seashells

Could you, please, undelete:

and possibly other related pages in main & author ns which I cannot see.

The File:American Seashells (1954).djvu was restored on Commons. Its deletion was incorrect (DR nomination based on false rationale; deleting admin did not verify that). Ankry (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Yann: thanks!--Zyephyrus (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving Pictures in Rhyme

I am writing to apologize for the massive moves I am going to perform. I have transcluded the work Pictures in Rhyme as the contributor who proofread most of the work did not know how to do it. However, I was mislead by the red link at the Index page and by the name of the djvu file and named the work and all its subpages "Pictures In Rhyme" instead of the correct "Pictures in Rhyme". Now I am going to move all of them which means that quite a lot of unnecessary redirects will be tagged to delete. I do apologize for the inconvenience. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Law of Liberty

An anonymous IP user keeps replacing the transcribed text at The Law of Liberty with images of the pages. Can someone semi-protect the page? Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  Done Although if scans are available, it would be good to migrate to transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1812)

A user uploaded English treaty text to Multilingual Wikisource, but it seems to belong here. Can an admin import the text with history? Ankry (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is already here, Treaty of Paris (1814). Despite the year in the title, they appear to be identical. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Dog and Rapper Vandal

Reporting [offensive username redacted --Xover (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)] as a harassment only account and as a sock of the Dog and Rapper Vandal. Please run a sleeper check too. --IanDBeacon (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There are (and have been) no edits here from that user. CheckUser functions for enWS are run by the Stewards. Presumably they are already involved. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Protect userpage?

This user has not made a logged-in edit since 2016, and the user page is getting IP edits recently. I'd suggest protecting the user page (unless the user expresses a different preference) -Pete (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The instances of vandalism seem to be rather isolated. BD2412 T 23:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Sure -- my concern is, I'm not sure whether any admins (or anybody at all) is watching that page, and I'd rather not be responsible for tracking it. I can keep an eye on it but it's likely I'll miss something. I don't know what the standard practices are here, but to me it seems like a good practice to default to protecting a user page if there's any reason to do so at all, in the absence of an objection from the user. -Pete (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
It's now on my watchlist. I do sometimes protect userpages, but I prefer to wait for multiple instances. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Beeswaxcandle (talkcontribs) Just logging here that the same vandalism was repeated today. -Pete (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Reverted page to last stable version and protected it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've also put the page on my watchlist. And as the page now requires autoconfirmed to edit the IP vandalism should drop off. So I'm marking this section as resolved: do please feel free to remove the template if you believe there is more to discuss or the section should not be archived yet! --Xover (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for autopatrol

Hi. I'd like to request autopatroled rights. I focus on US Supreme Court cases, and their opinions are all public domain. I understand the strict rules about copyright and believe that I can be trusted with this right. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Autopatrol implemented Ineuw (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

crosswiki vandalism

Please delete User talk:WikiBayer and User talk:Rodhullandemu and protect for a long time See enwikinews commons, Wikiversity, Wikispecies and other projects.(SWMT)---WikiBayer (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@WikiBayer: I see Prosfilaes has already taken care of your request—both talk pages are semi-protected and the offending account indeffed—so I'm marking this section as resolved. Note that RH&E's talkpage has legitimate content in the edit history so that's not been deleted, but the offensive edits have been revdel'ed. --Xover (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeffed user has made two unblock requests since. I have declined them both and have placed an indefinite protection on their talk page. If the block length is modified, please feel free to unprotect without checking with me first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay this is the second time I've had to revert vandalism on a user talk page...

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&action=history

Can an admin please apply revdel (or even oversight) some disturbing vandalism which isn't work safe? On some other sites I've been active this type of vandalism is grounds for an extended block. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Same type of vandalism as in the history here - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeedSupport&action=history from a simmilar IP address, so I am wondering if it might be the same entity responsible... Not sure if a range block is appropriate yet.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There are a string of xwiki LTAs who seek to cause displeasure wherever they can do so. Generally flowing on from the WPs, so we simply shut it down and protect the pages. If they are sneaking past autoconfirmed protection, I will bring in some filters, or write some at Meta that more generally apply. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Block request 2.84.9.177

There have been multiple vandalizing edits from this IP address to National Geographic , even after being warned repetedly to stop. Quanstizium (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No action made. There are no edits here from that IP address. Nor have there been recent edits to National Geographic. The only edits from the requester are this request. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeking a second opinon.

Special:Contributions/BigChungusBig

I'm getting a NOTHERE vibe but would appreciated a second opinon. I will attempt to revert some of the their efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what NOTHERE means but I've blocked the user for vandalism. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a enwp-ism. --Xover (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruption by User:EncycloPetey

The following discussion is closed:
The issue under discussion appears to be resolved. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

In attempting to create a more robust template for transcription projects, User:EncycloPetey engaged in a speedy deletion of that template while I found myself still editing the documentation. In motion to engage in dispute resolution, on the users talk page, they refused to explain their rational for the speedy deletion. I managed to recover the source for the template, I explicitly learned much wikimark to create, requiring significant effort. To preserve the source, I created a page in my account's user namespace. User:EncycloPetey in complete ignorance of the fact doing so would render the source unrecoverable for me, deleted that page with the edit summary stating I needed to login. User:EncycloPetey recently engaged in similarly behavior towards a very prolific Wikidata and Wikisource contributor User:RaboKarbakian refusing to justify reversions of that user's edits, which they seem to have had no significant prior contact with according to their Special:Contributions pages.

2605:A000:1238:A03F:F4E7:1B24:D13C:D526 18:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I explained the reason for deletion and quickly summarized Wikisource practice when it comes to duplicating templates. I advised our IP to begin a discussion in the Scriptorium if he felt that {{small scan link}} needed a revision. Our IP has failed to start such a discussion in the Scriptorium, and has not made a formal undelete request either. You can read the lengthy replies from our IP on my talk page, from which he jumped to a complaint here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm incline to agree with IP user here.
  • It is entirely reasonable to create a template first and start the discussion afterwards. I did that with {{biblecontents2}}, and others have done the same with other templates. It is also entirely reasonable to create a similar-but-not-identical template to fulfil a specific purpose. If IP user had been damaging {{small scan link}}, or had begun to deprecate it without a discussion, action could have been taken for vandalism, but this was not the case here.
  • Since {{project}} was clearly intended to improve upon {{small scan link}}, the "redundant" rationale for speedy deletion was not entirely appropriate; it would have been better to object to the template creation on Template talk:Project, and give IP user a chance to justify themselves, before speedy deleting it.
  • I also think the deletion of the pages in userspace was unwarranted. The pages did not fall under the speedy deletion guidelines, they were not spam/vandalism, there was no objection from User:Eaterjolly regarding the creation of the pages, and you have no evidence that IP user is not User:Eaterjolly.
All of which is to say, please don't delete stuff without a discussion unless it is clear violation of policy, which this was not. Editors will learn if you educate them; they will flee if you stomp on them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
So, our IP is a vandal? [1] --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
That looks like good faith editing to me. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't to me. I had already began my conversation with our IP, and advised him that changes to well-established and widely-used templates ought to be discussed first. After I advised him so, then he proceeded to edit the template. Our IP has self-identified the reason that he is here, and not logging in to his account, is that he faces a block on another wiki for disruptive editing. His previous controversial editing here has been self-described as done "to see if anyone would notice". Our IP has already broken good faith on more than one occasion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
In that case I think you were right to revert the changes to {{Ext scan link}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
At least on the userspace pages, they should only be created by the user in question. The IP is not User:Eaterjolly; by not logging in, they have chosen a cloak of anonymity and don't get the right to claim the advantages of being a logged-in user.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little iffy on the purpose of this new template, but I'm leaning towards agreeing with EncycloPetey on this one. The user should have started a discussion on Scriptorium's "Help" subpage for how to use the existing template to support whatever their particular use case was. If that discussion resulted in a consensus that a new template was needed, then the effort could be made. I'm a little on the fence as to whether a speedy deletion was appropriate in this case; if this was a regular, registered user I would suggest moving the template to their namespace. But if the user refuses to log in, I don't believe it's appropriate (or even possible?) to make it a userspace page -- which leaves deletion as the only option.
Furthermore, given that the commentary within the {{project}} template clearly indicates it is "intended to deprecate small scan link", then whatever it was that it was trying to accomplish should have been done in the original template if and only if the community decided it was necessary. ({{project}} is also a terribly ambiguous name. {{transcription project}} is already an alias for {{small scan link}}. This is also not relevant to the larger discussion; just pointing out that the choice of template name is unfortunate.)
Sometimes users from other wikis who come here don't realize that we have to temper Wikipedia's "Be Bold" mantras/policies based on the fact that the community of active users here is much smaller, so we have many fewer people available to maintain these templates. I don't believe it's appropriate to infer any sort of ill will from the actions of this IP for this reason in this situation. That being said, is it possible to restrict page creation in the Template namespace to autoconfirmed users? If it is, this might be something we should consider doing, if only because of this reason (not for any reasons of "censorship" or whatever.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It would have been preferable for IP user to start a discussion first, but they were not obliged to do so. As you know, we do not have a policy that requires discussion before creating a template. We do however have a policy that requires discussion before deleting a template unless it falls under a speedy deletion category. You'll note that the template was deleted as being G4 Redundant, not for being Created Without Discussion, or Intended To Supersede, or Using an Unfortunate Name. All of that is irrelevant.—It seems to me that the clear indication that the template was "intended to deprecate" is also a clear indication that the template is not Redundant. That very comment removed the criterion for speedy deletion and therefore is the biggest reason why the template should not have been deleted without a discussion.—Again, I am only commenting with what is required and allowed within our policies. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
A template that is explicitly intended to fill the same niche as an existing template is, by definition, redundant: "superfluous, exceeding what is necessary". Redundancy is a speedy deletion criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am IP. I merely don't want to lose my source code. How do I request undelete?

About wikipedia, I did not even edit outside discussion spaces as IP.

Please don't drag my account into that messy conflict.

I appealed the action I consider violating wikipedia:WP:OUTRAGE.

Eaterjolly (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules and policies apply only at Wikipedia. They do not apply anywhere else.
You have the source code already, as you said above: "I managed to recover the source for the template."
You have put yourself in this position, not anyone else. You have come here accusing members of the community of being lazy, ignorant, half-competent, self-entitled, disruptive, despicable, of making character judgements, bullshit, and more. All within the past week. This says more about your reasons for being here than anything else. You have only yourself to blame. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Only recovered that as a copy and paste into my namespace. Eaterjolly (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey:

You don't appear lazy.

You appear insanely dedicated.

If you had moved the template to my IP's namespace, I couldn't have even argued with you about that.

Eaterjolly (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the community member you accused of being lazy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Eaterjolly: I have pasted the contents of the deleted template on your User talk page. That is a non-controversial location for it. Please do not attempt to recreate the deleted template without a discussion with the community first. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Autopatroller User Rights

The following discussion is closed:
Withdrawn by requester. --Xover (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Per Help:Patrolling#Autopatrolled, I am requesting Requesting Autopatroller User Rights. I understand Wikisource Policies well enough to warrant this, I feel. Ping me with any questions, please. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 20:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

You've hardly edited here for the past year. And the fact that you just used HotCat to add a red-linked category to this thread suggests that you don't understand Wikisource structure very well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Withdrawn.Matthew J. Long -Talk- 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I will say, that I was planning on creating a category for discussion threads similar to Wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia noticeboards until I just realized there are not enough pages to properly populate it. We might need something beyond Wikisource:Index/Community, I personally feel. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 20:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

(Survey / Spam-Whitelist) Community guidelines for my master thesis

The following discussion is closed:
The requested whitelist appears to have been added. --Xover (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Wikisource-Admins,
my name is Robert Wintermeyer and I am studying at the university of Cologne. Currently I'm conducting surveys in various social media platforms as part of my master's thesis. The focus is on the community guidelines of the respective social platform and the acceptance by its users. In order to conduct my research I would need a Spam-whitelist for google forms. Moreover, I would like to know if it would be possible to conduct my research in wikisource either by approaching Wikisource-Editors or posting something on specific discussion pages. Other Wikis are already included in the research (Wikihow, Wikipedia DE/EN).

The URL for the Spam-Whitelist request would be either https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd0qBte9yGJnrI1r1SAEAEq5JAtGffGjnmGPzDpEUc6c6Bx4g/viewform?usp=sf_link or the shortened version https://goo.gl/forms/FZOgw0P9YTlnzWTl1.


Thank you very much!

Kind regards,

Robert Wintermeyer--Rwinterm (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource is not a social media platform. We are an on-line library. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikisource fits just like Wikipedia which is an online encyclopedia to the definition of social media that I use for my master thesis. It's about the collaborative character. As far as I'm concerned wikisource is a collaborative online library with user generated content which is also in the definition you referred me to ("Wikis are examples of collaborative content creation.")--Rwinterm (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
No, the content here is not user generated. Although Wikipedia users create original content, the content on Wikisource was previously published elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but the users gather the content that was previously published elsewhere if I'm not mistaken. Well I don't want to argue, it's sad if I'm not allowed to include Wikisource in my research but I also don't want to disturb anyone with my research--Rwinterm (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done No need to wikilaw argue the definition of an SMP where the user is making a civil request for a whitelist. @Rwinterm: I would ask that it only to be used in user talk: ns and in WS:S. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template

The following discussion is closed:
Bug filed in Phabricator (unlikely to be fixed any time soon). --Xover (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it if you could replace {{DEFAULTSORT:{{{Key|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} in MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template with {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if:{{{Key|}}}|{{{Key}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}, because it does not seem to work. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. --CES1596 (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@CES1596: what is not working, that this fix is to accomplish? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I temporally replaced the value of "sort key" of Index:Nihongi by Aston.djvu "Nihongi" by "Aston", but it still is listed in Category:Index_Not-Proofread&from=N. --CES1596 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Why would we want a work titled Nihongi to sort under "A"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Although this example may not be appropriate, it shows that we cannot use sort key even when it is necessary. I found the problem in Japanese version, where some files are named in Japanese. --CES1596 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: We can find more examples in Category:Index_Not-Proofread&from=0, Category:Index_Proofread&from=0, and Category:Index_Validated&from=0, such as Index:1909historyofdec04gibbuoft.djvu, Index:(1848) Observations on Church and State- JF Ferrier.pdf, Index:1947SydneyHailstorm.djvu, Index:20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf, Index:124-2009 Brunetti Obit.djvu, and Index:161006-Eatt-Text of Royal Warrant Merchant Navy Medal for Meritorious Service.pdf. --CES1596 (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've made the change; it doesn't seem to work either. You can use an individual Index's page info page to see the sort info, e.g. [2]Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried changing the content model. The sort key works when the content model is wikitext, but not when the content model is book index. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thank you for your cooperation. I inserted "{{DEFAULTSORT:Catholic Prayer Book, The}}" to "Table on Contents" of Index:The Catholic prayer book.djvu, as we do in Japanese version. It seems to work. Does the location of the sort key in MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template affect the result? --CES1596 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: If so, {{#if:{{{Remarks|}}}|<td style="padding:0 0.25em 0 0.25em; vertical-align:top; width:30%;">{{{Remarks}}}|<td style="display:none; padding:0; vertical-align:top;">}}{{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if:{{{Key|}}}|{{{Key}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}</td> may work. --CES1596 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
We confirmed that it does not work in Japanese version. --CES1596 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@CES1596: I believe it is a problem with the Book Index content model, and I would suggest reaching out to the devs via Phabricator for resolution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thank you for your trouble. --CES1596 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oversight

The following discussion is closed:
Absent followup I presume the issue is resolved. --Xover (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

When did WS admins lose oversight rights? Do we have any local editors with oversight rights? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not in the oversight group, but I can still delete revisions. Is it possible you are unable to do so because of a browser issue? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot hide/delete revisions. I have tried using two different browsers on two different computers running two different OS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
We have never had oversight rights, as it takes two for checking of people's actions. We did have users with checkuser rights. The qualification for both is a high hurdle with a community of our size. We can get OS done by asking stewards to do that for us using m:Special:Contact/Stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. But RevDel and Oversight ("suppression") are separate functions as I recall. Admins should be able to hide revisions (and summaries, and usernames) so they show up as hidden in the revision history, but Oversighters have the ability to completely delete a revision. Or something like that. I'd have to look it up to get the details right. In any case, my understanding was that in normal admin type situations, admins should have the necessary tools and it's only in truly egregious situations (illegal material, personal information leaks, etc.) the rights restricted to Oversighters are required. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Is this considered resolved? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker Edit Filter

The following discussion is closed:
No consensus to remove the filter. --Xover (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Special:AbuseFilter/17 really necessary when there is always Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker? I fail to see the purpose of tagging every edit by this one bot. It's 2am here for me right now, so it's likely I have no clue what I am talking about. –MJLTalk 06:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about that, but I can say that the edit tags in watchlists and page histories make it easier for me to quickly identify them, and is beneficial to me. There may be other benefits that other editors use as well.—Also, I think we tag all the bots, so this one is par for the course —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess it's just a bother for me because it fills up Special:AbuseLog which I semi-regularly monitor alongside Special:RecentChanges. Speaking of which...MJLTalk 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I just was looking at Special:Tags, and we apparently only tag CommonsDelinker. No other bot has such a tag. This includes Wikisource-bot, TarmstroBot, and SDrewthbot -- each of which have more edits than any other user on this site (source). –MJLTalk 15:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment the filter was created as Commons had a habit of deleting our images and our books, and we had no easy means to identify such deletions. While badgering at Commons has lessened the faux deletion rate, it still occurs. I would suggest keeping it as it is a push notification rather than a pull notification where hardly anyone goes. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting the activation of the OCR daemon

The following discussion is closed:
The immediate issue was resolved. Future iissues with Phe's tools should probably be reported at Github until Phe becomes more active on Wikisource again. --Xover (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The title says it all. If there is additional information on how to manage this activation by myself, please advise.— Ineuw talk 22:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're seeking. The OCR button in the Proofreading still works. I just tried it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I have the OCR button on my toolbar and use it often to replace damaged scans. But some times in a 24hr span, I get the message "ws_ocr_daemon robot is not running. Please try again later." (http://tools.wmflabs.org/phetools/ocr.php.) — Ineuw talk 22:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Its working now. Looking at its log, it seems that it was busy with previous requests from other users. Then, the message is misleading.— Ineuw talk 04:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a Phabricator bug should be filed to improve the error message? I've been confused by messages like this before, though I'm not sure if it's the identical situation. But improving error messages is worth doing. I could file it if you like. -Pete (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: With my blessings. Please file it and send me the link so that I can learn from it. My bug reporting skills at wmf are usually deficient. :-) — Ineuw talk 01:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Here you go @Ineuw: bug report. Not sure how much good it will do, but it can't hurt! Also, it looks like this is Phe (talkcontribs)'s tool...have they been notified yet? -Pete (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Much thanks for the help. I know that it is Phe's tool, and I have to ask him if it's is possible to place this script and "Clean Up OCR" in my user space. — Ineuw talk 21:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Global bans

The following discussion is closed.

The editor in the above discussion seems to be embroiled in a cross-wiki skirmish with some other users. From my perspective, all I can see is good faith edits being repeatedly reverted by non-admin users who claim that there is some sort of global ban that empowers them to do so. What is the expectation for how we handle these? Normally I would consider the bulk deletion of good-faith comments and the repeated edit warring to be vandalism, and I would block Antandrus and DannyS712 accordingly. I see no indication that this link implies that the user being reverted is subject to a global ban. The users reverting the content are neither admins nor stewards and so do not appear to fall under our checkuser policy. To sum up: I would appreciate it if someone could link me to policy or discussion that shows that this edit warring is proper behaviour and not deserving of blocking all around. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Information is a bit opaque in this case, but this looks to be w:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/George Reeves Person, who has a decade+-long beef with Antandrus (who is an admin on enwp; one of the original admins too, as I recall) who has been one of the admins that have handled the cases (Jimbo Wales was involved in the early days too). GRP is globally banned under the then handle "Projects" by WMF Trust & Safety, which is what the diff link in the edit summary here refers to. The ban is due to long-term persistent abusive behaviour, attempted outing, and serious legal and physical threats.
It's a bit hard to see all the relevant information here without access to the history on enwp, but there are clear signs of unclean hands even just here: clearly abusing multiple accounts and editing under an IP (you can see them all in the revision history of that talk page), threats of various kinds, and accusations against anyone that disagrees with them (see the attacks on Petey's talk page, your page, and against Antandrus, and the thread above). I would say this is a case of block on sight, by reference to a WMF Office action (global ban from all WMF wikis), and do not engage in discussions with the user (it only escalates the conflict and tends to make them fixate, see for example Antandrus). --Xover (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
My 20c is to revert global ban conversations raised here, they belong at meta. There is no value discussing them here at all. I would also tell Antandrus and DannyS712 to leave off, we can manage our own affairs. We have a patrolling regimen and can manage. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I think we can redirect to meta without reverting, provided the conversation is civil. Reversions just make people angry. I appreciate your advice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd just like to note that I am a contributor here too, and have done more than just reverts - I'm sure wikisource can "manage [its] own affairs", but I believe I fall into that scope. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Thank you for your contributions here, I really appreciate your work here. Just be aware that removing user comments from talk pages, and engaging in reversion wars, can put you afoul of the WS:Blocking policy. Better to post here first so that we know not to lump you in with the vandals by mistake. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: yes, it is clear that the other editor(s) are not innocent here. However, without involving a checkuser, I would be very hesitant to block an account "on sight" unless the user in question is violating the blocking policy, or without clear evidence that it is a sockpuppet of a user who has violated the blocking policy. Furthermore, I think it is completely inappropriate to cite a global ban when blocking a user account, unless a checkuser has confirmed that the editor is in fact a sockpuppet of User:Projects or another globally banned user. In this case I would definitely block any individual user accounts that issued threats (I believe these have been blocked already) and would leave the sockpuppetry to the stewards (which I think EncycloPetey was working on?). I was more concerned about how to respond to the behaviour of the legitimate users in this disagreement. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
There are actually two banned editors here -- the "George Reeves Person", who lives in Chicago, and has been harassing, threatening, and outing us for about 13 years now. Some of us have tried to remove his clutter wherever he puts it -- if you want me to stop I'll remove Wikisource from my search script. A word of warning about this guy: he will fixate on you. He will email you, at first pleading for help in his imaginary war against stewards, admins, and whatever, and then that will turn to threats. Do not let him get any personally identifying information about you, for he will craft that into hate pages with accusations of criminal behavior. If he gets your IP he will forge damaging emails to *himself* with your IP in the header, pass those on to your ISP, and get you kicked. He's good at it. GRP spent almost three years in jail for this behavior, and since he got out he's been doing it again.
The second editor is Wikinger, who copycats GRP all the time. Antandrus (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I doubt that I need the concepts of vandals, LTAs, global bans, nor these particular users explained to me.

I also know that we don't feed trolls, and that local management of these matters are more appropriate, rather than vigilante, or Don Quixote-type charges. Every time that you are running around labelling and taking the fight to a user, is every time that LTA is getting their jollies for having you on the run, a puppet on their string. Every time you use their name, and pin a badge to them, you are feeding the troll. Don't feed the trolls. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: On the standard of evidence to apply, sure, there's clearly room for reasonable people to disagree. I don't see why we would not generally take an enwp admin who stops by helping deal with "spillover" at their word, but if you feel (for example) that we should reinvestigate all such cases from scratch before acting then that's certainly a valid position. But in this case the person in question (not the account, the person) is banned by WMF Office from editing any WMF wiki, ever, under any circumstance. This strictly speaking overrides our local block policy, and in particular the part where we choose to keep constructive contributions even by locally banned users.
Under these circumstances I feel it would be very unfair to single out anyone just trying in good faith to help enforce this ban; both for a productive member of our community here on WS (like Danny), and for an admin on one of our sister projects who is trying to help out with a particularly difficult case across projects in our wider movement community (i.e. Antandrus).
If we feel their involvement is not the optimum way to handle the specific situation, then the appropriate response is a note on their talk page politely asking them to butt out. But in general we should be very grateful for every volunteer that tries to help out with such issues, and even more so for those willing and aware enough to help out across projects. I am surprised and somewhat dismayed to observe that the level of hostility for those (movement) community members that have tried to help out here is greater than for the person acting in bad faith that they have tried to help out with. Regardless of whether one disagrees about the best way to handle the situation, that seems rather backwards to me. --Xover (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: The strict enforcement of global bans WMF-placed by is a responsibility of WMF, not anyone else. If community members think that there is a breach of a ban order, then it should be reported to WMF via m:Talk:Office actions for their investigation and resolution. Admins here may locally enforce any block, there is no requirement for an admin to undertake any blocking action, nor to enforce the will of WMF. This has zero impact on our local blocking policy. We pick our battles, and we don't let people bring their crusades here, especially not from enWP. I suggest follow the basic rules of manage disruptive editing in this scenario, and that applies to all parties. Better to be professional, than to think that any of us are superheroes.

All that said, we should not be rehashing global ban conversations, they have been had and should be accepted as a WMF requirement, or as the consensus of the broader community. If someone wants to rehash it, take it to meta! — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: If I started reverting non-controversial edits on Wikipedia, I would fully expect Antandrus or another WP admin to block me without discussion. Reversion warring is explicitly against the blocking policy and we all block disruptive editors without further discussion - or further checking to see if they might be admins on another wiki. I will remind you that the only indication that the problem user was the same as a WMF-banned person, is the say-so of Antandrus, a user with no checkuser rights here. It is not my intention to be hostile. It is only my intention to understand how we are expected to respond, when editors start enforcing rulings that Wikisource admins like myself are unaware of and unable to corroborate. (Also, the behaviour here looked like they were nuking a newbie, which is a common and reprehensible practice that really pisses me off, which may have affected my tone - I apologize for that) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Out of scope and copyvio related to the Hong Kong situation

Over the last few days, a user has created:

By my estimation these are all out of scope and copyright violations (2019 works without a compatible license). They also appear to be being added across several language wikisources (@Billinghurst, @Jusjih: your take?). The editor in question gives every appearance of acting in good faith.

I would appreciate it if someone more experienced could take a look at the issue. --Xover (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I would concur that those modern anonymous works are not clearly in the public domain with a license that would allow us to reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have posted on the uploader's talk page. We should give them a few days to comply, then delete if they are not fixed. @Jusjih: do you want to follow up on their contributions to zhWS? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio, unless explicitly released to public domain, we're not to keep those. Viztor (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

These works have now been deleted. The category could be deleted too I guess, though there is stuff that could reasonably be placed in it (such as the extradition bill itself). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Transwiki Import request

Per this post and this Wikipedia deletion debate. Admins over there would like to transwiki Full translation of the Behistun Inscription over here (likely to Translation:Behistun_Inscription). –MJLTalk 20:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a published translation (in 1907, see footnote [1]), so it would not go into the Translation namespace. However, we would need a copy stripped of all the added images and commentary. A second (annotated) copy containing reference images and wikilinks could be hosted once a stripped down copy of the original was in place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: {{Done}} No wait, I forgot the Wiki-links.MJLTalk 22:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Now it's   DoneMJLTalk 22:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have copied the trimmed form of w:Full translation of the Behistun Inscription to Translation:Behistun_Inscription; I then reverted w:Full translation of the Behistun Inscription to the full form with notes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    I have moved the text to Behistun Inscription (King and Thompson) because this is a published translation from 1907, and not a Wikisource original translation. When the annotated version is transwikied, it should go to Behistun Inscription (annotated) and have a pointer to the unannotated version. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey: Could you please import the page history as well? –MJLTalk 01:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't have the ability to do that, as far as I know, and my computer is incompatible with the mechanism used for transwiki imports. There are only a couple of admins here who might be able to transwiki a file from Wikipedia, and I can't recall the last time we did so, or who performed the action. Billinghurst, Hesperian, DeirdreAnne, or Jusjih are the admins most likely to know what to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    Every admin has the ability to transwiki import, it is XML that is restricted. Rights expressed at special:listgrouprights#sysop. The source of import is configured on an individual wiki level, and we have enWP on that dropdown list. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have transwiki'ed w:Full translation of the Behistun Inscription and moved the result to Translation:Behistun Inscription. I ticked the wrong box so the edits in its revision history are assigned to the enwp users rather than the local users, but that should be a mostly cosmetic issue; its full revision history is included. I put the one with full history in the Translation: namespace since the richest version (the annotated one) is the one with the most edits, and the mainspace version is in effect a cut&paste move of a pared down version. For revision history this makes sense, even if for policy purposes the bare version should be primary and come first, and the annotated version be secondary and follow after. For technical reasons, both versions cannot have full revision history (each edit has a unique identity and can only exist once on a given wiki). Translation:Behistun Inscription now needs cleaning up (redlinks, enwp templates, etc.), and Behistun Inscription (King and Thompson) needs to refer to it for attribution purposes. --Xover (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

  comment about import I am a little surprised to see the work here in the current form, as that is an excerpt of what was published, and out of context of its publication. It isn't our task to rescue enWP's out of scope works just because. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I acted on my understanding of the above discussion that suggested the issue was simply one of annotated—unannotated, and since an unannotated version was provided the annotated one could be hosted here. If there are further issues with it then my importing of it should not be taken as any particular stance or argument on the issue. Or put another way, I've mainly acted as a technical helper because EncycloPetey indicated they were unable to perform the technical task. (I also see I was mistaken in thinking annotated works should go in the Translation: namespace. I've either misunderstood something somewhere, or my understanding was based on out of date information). --Xover (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Translation namespace is for works that were translated from other languages by Wikisource editors, and for nothing else —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: That's pretty much my fault because I was the one who suggested it be moved there because I didn't know it was based on a published work. –MJLTalk 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Normally I would agree with regard to extracts of works. In this case, however, the parent work puts the translation text interlinear with the original, which is written in a script that almost no one here would be able to code and prepare. As such, the translation seemed to have merit, especially since a heavily annotated version had been prepared to assist readers. Under other circumstances, an extract from a publication would simply be subsumed into a transcription, and effecting a text rescue would not be of significant value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The approach taken by Beleg Tâl is more in line with what I would have expected. I simply said I was surprised that it was there in the form that arrived. It is a published work, publicly available and among zillions of published works that we don't have. There was no need to rush, nor ultimately to rescue when it was outside of our scope.

At enWP we had the opportunity to explain about their halved-chewed discards, and we could have educated and informed about editions, and provenance of our works. For this work, like any other work, if someone wishes to work on it great, and there may have been some volunteers at enWP who were going to take interest. Dunno.

P.S. If it came across as laying fault, then my apologies, that was not my intent. My intent was we rushed, rather than took the step back and considered our scope, and alignment with our scope.— billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't take your comment as implying any fault. After all, I'm the one who tracked down a scan of the source at IA and linked to it, establishing a toehold for what Beleg Tâl has now done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia.djvu is now live. Differences in the translation were made by Wikipedia editors and will need to be reverted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

And I have moved the two pages to their appropriate locations.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: So how should I go about transcluding this? Should we include the non-latin characters in the annotated version? I would suspect not, right? –MJLTalk 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: I have already started a discussion on the subject, at Index talk:The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia.djvuBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by PigsontheWing

Repeated reversions at Author:Frederick W. Lanchester both of cleanup and of linking to better scan. Metadata should be housed at Wikidata; not on Author pages. Better quality scans, such as those from the University of California are preferred over Google Scans Looking for advice from other admins given recent history. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"from other admins" oh, damn! CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This is too much drama for me, I don't think it matters if the publisher is listed on the author page, or what scan we link to, none of this is against policy, ext scan links are just a convenience anyway, if you want a better scan then you have to upload and proofread one, otherwise there are more important things to do around here, I would just move on if it were me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: The description as vandalism seems unjustified. You removed content that others think desirable. Do you have any further comment? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

WS:VANDAL defines as a "deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the library". If the revert had happened just once, it might be understandable as an oversight, but repeatedly replacing a link to a high-quality scan with a link to a low-quality scan reduces the quality of Wikisource. Editors who begin transcription projects preferentially upload the linked scan rather than checking for better scans. Thus, replacing scan links with links to poor-quality scans will reduce the quality of the library, and the description as vandalism is justified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Not what happened, Andy restored the better link after reverting your removal of the other information, in a single edit that clearly shows it was recognised as an improvement. What that user did was not vandalism. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request

Please, delete Index:Bohemian section at the Austrian exhibition, 1906.pdf. It was replaced by Index:Guide to the Bohemian section and to the Kingdom of Bohemia - 1906.djvu, which is a better copy of the same edition. Thank you very much. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Poet Lore, volume 31, 1920.pdf can be also deleted, having been replaced by Index:Poet Lore, volume 31, 1920.djvu. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming account with lost password?

I've run into a slightly thorny problem and could use some assistance.

A user has registered an account here, and made several contributions with it, but has subsequently lost access to the account. The account does not have email enabled, and the user has not succeeded in regaining access to it through password reset etc.

Now a different (new) account is claiming to be the person who registered the original account and wishes to have it deleted because the username is the same as that person's real name (they did not understand that their username would be public). Their behaviour is entirely consistent with this, and there is no apparent reason to distrust their story, but neither are there any easy ways to actually verify their identity as the account owner.

If the issue here was just getting access to their old account the standard answer would be "Make a new account". But here the concern is personal information that needs to be hidden.

Do we have any good mechanism to handle this situation? Could we have them email proof of real life identity to OTRS and take a name match to the account name as sufficient verification to have the old account renamed? Are there any magical backdoor mechanisms for resetting the password for an account without email, and, if so, what verification is needed for that?

They assert that their current IP address is the same as it was when they created the original account. Would it be permissible for the Checkusers to check this claim in these circumstances, and would we consider this sufficient evidence on its own to justify a global account rename?

Actually, since we're in effect talking about a global account rename either way here, do I need to ask the Stewards on Meta directly what options we have and what verification would be required?

Any advice would be much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I think w:WP:RENAME gives an outline of what can be done here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Just push them to the stewards, don't wear the grief.

If there is personal information available bar the name (names are not unique, and they can be faked) then we just delete the private information. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: In this instance it seems the original account was created to contribute material related to local history, such that now if you google their hometown and real name you'll hit their Wikisource user talk page (and another user's talk page where they also posted). Their original contributions were all deleted as out of scope, and they were rather confused by how Wikisource works, so you can imagine that their talk page isn't exactly a glossy social media profile (nothing spectacular, just not something you want as the first google hit about yourself). I imagine we might be able to alleviate the worst of their concerns by deleting their old user talk page and redacting their name from the other user's talk page, since that would hide it from google. And nothing of any great import would be hidden, but we would be revdel'ing what could potentially be someone else's contribs without actual evidence. Would this be a reasonable course of action here?
If we're to hand the username issue off to the Stewards, what is the proper process and venue for it? Should I post a request on the user's behalf on m:USURP? Request a Steward on IRC? Won't they just bounce it back to WS to resolve?
I feel pretty bad for this user as they were clearly trying to contribute in good faith in an area they cared deeply about, and then ran head first into the brick wall that is all the weird wiki-specific stuff that is completely outside the context that most people are prepared to handle. To the degree we can help them clean up the resulting mess without compromising policy I would very much like us to do so. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
We manage local issues/edits, we cannot manage global accounts that is stewards (well the limited amount that accounts be managed, and they cannot reset or re-align accounts). I have no issue with our revdel'ing user talk pages. The user should contact stewards either via m:Stewards' noticeboard (public) or via their email address stewards wikimedia.org (privately). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok. Then I am going to use my own judgement in hiding information here, and then refer the user to the Stewards if they want to pursue the username issue. Based on my assessment so far the local actions will amount to simply deleting two user talk pages for accounts that I believe to be previous accounts created by this user, and possibly revdel'ing one old edit to WS:S/Help. All edits to the affected pages are related to the user's now-deleted contributions and are by the user themselves or admins trying to assist the user. I considered also blocking the two old accounts (leaving talk page access open) as presumed abandoned, but have for now decided that that would have little benefit and has some potential for negative effects (I mention this in order to invite feedback if anybody would judge that issue differently). --Xover (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

IP range threats

Cross-wiki drama imported by IP using a range of addresses and making threats. e.g. this edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If you can point out explicit examples of behaviour on English Wikisource that warrants administrative action, then we can take action accordingly. Otherwise, saying things like "encyclopetey u will pay for this" will just get yourself banned, your edits reverted, and your legitimate grievances ignored. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading our abuse filters to allow blocking

The following discussion is closed:
consensus is to add blocking to the available toolkits for abuse filters;   Comment will get overall abuse rights modernised to standard WMF settings

One of the standard abilities for abuse filters in mediawiki is to allow blocking of accounts or IP addresses (Block the user and/or IP address from editing) based on criteria in a filter. It has not been something that we have typically needed over the years as we haven't had persistent vandalism or spam. Things seem to have changed, and I think that it is probably time for us to move to having blocking functionality available. [technical detail https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=abusefilter.php and setting $wgAbuseFilterActions['block'] = true;]

To have this change made at enWS, we would need to demonstrate a consensus of the community, and lodge a phabricator site request. Accordingly I propose:

  • English Wikisource moves to have enabled the ability to block through its abuse filters.

billinghurst sDrewth 04:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Sam Wilson 05:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Mpaa (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Non admin note of support ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I Will also note that I'm also in favour of IP contributors being 'encouraged' to get an account.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I am… ambivalent.
    What criteria would we block on that are not better handled by the global abuse filter? I haven't noticed any spam or vandalism that seems unique to enWS; and the most common spam seems to have no obvious machine-detectable characteristics in common.
    We also currently allow non-admins to edit the filters: do they get to set the action to block too?
    And would it be only for spam and vandalism, or would it be acceptable to use abuse filters to auto-block also other undesirable behaviours (presumably only those covered by the blocking policy, but…)? We have some spectacular recent examples of that which it would be very convenient to simply delegate to auto-blocks, but those would also be really hard to safely detect with a filter. For example, how would we make sure reports of such behaviour are not caught up with the actual behaviour itself?
    How do we review such blocks to make sure we catch any unintended side-effects? Or even deliberate abuse of them?
    Note that I am not necessarily opposed to enabling this, but I see a lot of potential for misuse and collateral damage that is not addressed sufficiently for my peace of mind. --Xover (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      reply Abuse filter blocks are not new, and have been successfully used at multiple sites, and I am unaware of any abuse of filters, let alone for blocking. We have had them on at meta for +++ years. The community to be setting rules for their use is pretty easy, and the provision of blocks should always be as a last resort. "Hasten slowly" is a pretty good approach for any abuse filter, only slowly increase their consequences and only where necessary, and test test test.

    Review? Like any other filters. 1) special:abuselog and 2) special:log/block through we would specifically look at those by user:Abuse filter special:log/block/Abuse filter. Global abuse filters do not block, it is a steward self-imposed rule; part of the purpose is to manage those spambots that morph their editing and later spam. And to note that I wrote the global spam filters that catch spambots, and a swag of those that continue to do so m:Special:AbuseFilter. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

    • We allow non-admins to edit the filters? That seems like it would be open to abuse from inexperienced or malicious users. I support restricting access to the filter regardless of this discussion. Also I think that conforming to the block policy goes without saying. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • We only allow non-admins to edit the filters if an admin has granted them that right. It has to be turned on explicitly (and can be revoked through the same mechanism). At present there are only 9 users with the right. Of those 6 are admins. The other 3 users have not edited here for some time. I believe that this is restrictive enough. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        Note. I have just removed two set of abusefilter rights from retired administrators. The remaining non-admin rights user is vastly trusted user who is also a WMF employee, and has rights as they are the best at filters. I would also suggest that we ask the bureaucrats to review whether those rights are retained when they remove admin rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Question. Is there any particular reason why we don't allow non-admins access to the abusefilter-log-detail right? I feel like that is something we could easily bundle with the Abuse filter editors userright (or even Autoconfirmed/Confirmed users). I generally do most of my anti-vandalism patrolling on enwiki using Special:AbuseLog, but I can't link to reports without that permission. It seems awfully silly that I can view most of them through meta (even while logged out), but I can't see/reference the details for the unique enwikisource ones. –MJLTalk 17:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I am unable to say why those rights were not assigned here when they were rolled out over the years. Best I can assume is that as we were non-standard that we were skipped, and not even asked. I will attempt to get that standarised in my phabricator request. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. The proposition would not require that we use this ability with any particular filter; it would apply only where the circumstances merited its use for a particular filter. BD2412 T 01:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This would go a long way towards preventing abuse. –MJLTalk 17:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)