Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2021

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Transwiki export request for Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank (SCB)Edit

The following discussion is closed:
Speedied as out of scope.

Could someone please transwiki Saigon Joint Stock Commercial Bank (SCB) to Wikipedia? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Made Fill_Index gadget a default gadgetEdit

The gadget that enables the inhalation of the {{Book}} metadata has been functioning for years, so I have made the bold decision that we can have that gadget on by default for when people create an Index: page. I am hoping that this will ease the pain for some and enable the better completion of the data fields. People can still turn it off if they wish to have nude Index: pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

103.42.217.225Edit

Hi. Please block 103.42.217.225 for vandalism.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done thank you for the report. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

49.228.239.36Edit

Please block for the IP address 49.228.239.36 for vandalism. Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done, because the disruption ceased on your reversion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for interface admin rights renewalEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Inductiveload's interface-admin bit was extended.

Done. Mpaa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

CopyrightProfanity/KidsAreVeryCool/BetThisWillWorkEdit

As noted at #Permanently blocked user:CopyrightProfanity we have a little vandal, who is presumably an LTA when looking at the editing. Quietly repeating the same edits from different accounts, and not wishing to communicate beyond the vulgarity of their revision text. Lodging a request at m:SRCUbillinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested m:special:permalink/21135286billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

HaterpullEdit

Please block Haterpull - see Special:Contributions/Haterpull --DannyS712 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done and reverted edits. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Sumjith Jancy Sunny (talkcontribs)Edit

Apparent spamverter (re: COVID-19 promos), already warned by this filing contributor. --Slgrandson (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slgrandson:   Done , thanks for the report and warning. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Gadget development: mobile view gadget from enWPEdit

@Inductiveload: can you check the gadget that I have added (calls enWP's gadget) that enables mobile view and see if it suitably portrays works per Help:Preparing for export so to assist in things to be listed at Category:Ready for export. Thanks if you can. NOTING it only shows for those using the Vector skin. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: it seems to work OK for me - it's a little more convenient that the browser mobile mode as you don't have to change skin too. I'll add to the Help:Preparing for export instructions. Thanks. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

System message: MediaWiki:Citethispage-contentEdit

I recommend to replace two occurrences

 wiki:xxx

by

 enwikisource:{{REVISIONID}}

Rationale:

  • That code wiki:xxx is a unique identifier within the TeX document.
  • Writers are forced to edit this ID manually if they subsequently quote wiki pages and they have to invent a different ID each time.
  • By DB name and version ID a globally unique ID will be created now.
  • English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia made this change recently.
  • It is even possible to derive the permalink URL from that ID.

Greetings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done @PerfektesChaos: We haven't tended to fuss over them as they don't work well with our transcluded works which can change in the proofreading in the underlying pages though no change at the version level but that is a different story. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Toggled layouts work footer width differences between monobook and vectorEdit

When I look at main ns pages in toggle layouts in monobook skin the work footer is full width to match the work header. When I look at the same page in vector the footer is the width of the text, not the width of the page. Could someone skilled in CSS have a look and see if we can get the work footer to match the work header in its displays.

Presumably those who use vector haven't noticed the difference the other way. The plan for the bottom footer was always to be match the width of the work header, and it would be good if we could fix it.

Can I ask at this point does anyone actually use or like Layout 3? To me it hides so much metadata about the work that I find it deleterious and lacking usefulness. Gut feel is that we should retire it. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I do use the three layouts: it depends on what I am doing with the text and what kind of text it is. --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The footer is added by a javascript, generated from the values in the header. That javascript mostly runs after the pagenumbers/dynamic layout script, so the fix there that hoists the header and license templates etc. out of the dynamic layouts is never applied to the footer. IOW it's not a CSS fix, but it's probably a fairly straightforward fix in the javascript: it just needs to add the footer outside the dynamic layout container (.before('#catlinks') instead of .after'(printfooter'), probably). I'll take a look when time allows if nobody beats me to it (it'll need someone with interface admin rights to implement in any case). --Xover (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: In MediaWiki:Gadget-PageNumbers-core.js, $exempt_hdr and $exempt_ftr are swapped (_hdr is the footer stuff and _ftr is the header stuff). Once swapped, $exempt_ftr needs an additional .append($('#footertemplate')). And for belt and suspenders purposes, we could possibly also add a .dynlayout-exempt to div#footertemplate in MediaWiki:Gadget-DisplayFooter.js to avoid it getting shoved in there to begin with. --Xover (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Xover:   Done . Something's not quite right because the footer is still not in the Dynamic Layout exempt footer, but it's better than it was. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
👍 thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Permanently blocked user:CopyrightProfanityEdit

Hi to all. This user has taken a forthright stance to editing outside of the community guidelines of editing to a source and with a stance that I would categorise as disruptive editing. I have tried to engage in conversation with the user about our policies, and guidance, and been preemptively dismissed. I cannot see how we can get a valuable contributor for someone who just wishes to do as they please without regard to our editing to a source. Beeswaxcandle previously blocked the user, as I did subsequently while trying to converse, to no success, and afterwards the same edits being made again. I have now permanently blocked the user, and leave that review to the community as we have not tended to block valid users permanently. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  •   Note: The user in question has requested to be unblocked, and I have declined the request. --Xover (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I endorse this. From their first interactions on, it was apparent that the blocked editor was not here to build a properly sourced collection. BD2412 T 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  Comment They came back as KidsAreVeryCool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL). I have just blocked it. I am also somewhat comfortable that it is an LTA, and if they come back again then I will look to take it for CU investigation at meta:SRCU. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  Comment and now as BetThisWillWork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) I will lodge a CU request, and add the paperwork above. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit requestsEdit

There are 2 dated requests for edit protection at Category:Wikisource protected edit requests. I do not understand the templates very much, so can somebody more capable of considering it have a look at it, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Thanks for the headsup. Both edit requests had already been actioned, it was just the request template that hadn't been updated yet. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Account hacking attemptsEdit

This to advise that there have been two recent hacking attempts on my account, both times with multiple consecutive attempts. Linked in time with my deletions of a chess diagram, I would attribute them to that particular LTA. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment. I received a rather odd and rambling email from User:Janwillpaysback which I think is addressed to the situation. BD2412 T 06:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Ditto on the email.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Same mail to me. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I have also received 2 messages about multiple hacking attempts on my account, the first one correlating to my reverts of the IPs’ trying to push a non-sensical change to Poetry, the other one correlationg to my reverts of the IPs connected with the chess diagram. I guess that troll knows we get the messages and is just trying to bother us in this way. I have also received a vulgar harassing email from User:Fordaliton. It is still the same person who also tries to refer to some alleged disagreement between a particular en.wiki admin and en.ws admins, the purpose of which probably is to offend the en.wiki admin. I am not sure if it is the same person as #CopyrightProfanity/KidsAreVeryCool/BetThisWillWork, though it is possible. The last revert I did was at Index:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu this morning. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Different LTA. This one is chess and boxing and will personally attack Antandrus in the mix. They've come round here a few times and will try to wikilawyer an unsuspecting admin into defending them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Comment Yep, pretty standard, and it is a xwiki LTA, cannot remember which one, they all look the same. Could be two, there are a number of repeaters. Not certain that they are truly trying to hack or just be a PITA. [Just have an excellent password.] enWikivoyage has a filters for this twit to which I have contributed, and I have another at meta. If it continues, I will just bring them over. I have seen some of the vandalism, though probably not all of it, so please don't be afraid to add some diffs here, and I can look at manage. [Block/protect and don't feed the trolls.] Always feel free to request an account lock from the stewards at m:SRG. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The LTA uses proxies, sometimes proxy ranges. If you have more accounts that you believe are problematic within ranges, then add them to the m:SRCU request. Stewards will support us in this matter, and block ranges that they can. They do want to hear about the abuse and will help defend. The thing to remember is that this twit is after some jollies, and wants to upset and have people to react, so don't be. We build our defences in a layered approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Do you mean to add there the suspected registered accounts or also all the IP addresses? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Just add the accounts. It can be done by any admin, though recommend that they are added to our CU section too so stewards have a point of reference. IMNSHO no point in adding IP addresses to a CU check for an LTA. Just block the IP address or range on sight for an appropriate period where it is problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I have taken some defensive measures. I will look again repeatedly over the next few days about what else we need to do, and tidying. If you have issues here or elsewhere then drop me a mail, or contact me somewhere out of where this LTA operates. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Block requestEdit

73.159.207.15 — cross-wiki vandalism. Thank you. —Hasley (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  Done Blocked already a little while before this request. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

having some troubleEdit

Is this talk page duplicated some where? https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Billinghurst&curid=225677&diff=10982559&oldid=10982555 --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Your last two edits (1, 2) to Billinghurst's talk page included a copy of all the existing content of the page in addition to the message you were intending to add. That's why 1234qwer1234qwer4 reverted your changes. I don't know what could have caused that to happen. Could it be that you were just unlucky with a copy and paste or something? --Xover (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
It was an edit conflict with the news and I used the gizzmo to copy my comment to the clipboard, so I pasted it from there after keeping the news. When I looked at the next edit (not mine), the page had been blanked. I am not liking being a beta tester. The page here was blanked! It looked like vandalism....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Jonathankingston99Edit

Somebody using the username Jonathankingston99 (talkcontribs) founded a page called Jonathan Kingston about a National Geographic photographer Jonathan Kingston, which I deleted as being beyond scope. Before I did so, I contacted the the photographer Jonathan Kingston just to make sure whether he founded the page (with the idea that if he did I would explain the rules of Wikisource and offer a different kind of cooperation) but he confirmed that he had nothing to do with it. The page is deleted now, but I would like to ask how much it is acceptable to have usernames resembling names of known people. Or should the user be blocked because of the username? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

He's not the only Jonathan Kingston in the world; I believe, e.g., the owner of JonathanKingston.co.uk is a different Jonathan Kingston. So I don't think blocking names that resemble names of known people is feasible. In this case, it seems sort of moot; I don't think there will ever be edits made from this account again. If the username was being used for deception or harassment, that would be one thing, but I don't think the username as it is is justification for banning.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 07:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

bot flagging semi-automated editsEdit

I have a template replacement for 3k+ pages that can't be reliably automated (well, not sanely in any case)—hence why not done as an actual bot run—that I'm planning to do semi-automated using Pywikibot. I'll be running it in interactive mode from PAWS and checking every edit. Based on a small test batch the rate of edits will be somewhere on the order of 3-4 edits per minute, and it'll happen in batches where I have the available time. But to avoid making recent changes too noisy I'm planning to turn on the bot flag on my account while it's going. Just letting y'all know so's to not make anyone think I'm up to something shady. :) --Xover (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Always worth running a separate bot account IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A list of a main namespace page subpages?Edit

How can I generate a list of a main namespace title page subpages? — Ineuw (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:Subpages Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks but I was referring to a single title.— Ineuw (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Went through the pages and it's impossible to find anything. For some reason, projects were indexed in an unfathomable fashion and EB is a major culprit.
Otherwise, I was hoping that the $wgnamespaceswithsubpages was included in the our .php. At the bottom of the Special:Version page there is a hook listed as subpagename, and subpagenamee. I have no clue if they are relevant, and how to use them. — Ineuw (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Okay, this search gives me the title page and the 25 subpages for Tom Swift in Captivity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again. That is what I did. Just hoped to gain a new level of proficiency. 08:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ineuw, @Beeswaxcandle: If all you want are subpages of a single work, the easiest way is [[Special:PrefixIndex/Tom Swift in Captivity/]] (including the slash at the end). You can access that link from the main page by clicking "Page information" in the side bar and then the "Number of subpages of this page" link in the table. As you can see…
…the list can even be transcluded. --Xover (talk) 09:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks.— Ineuw (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

OCR gadget freezes text and cursor!Edit

Our standard OCR gadget when clicked, it freezes the textarea and the mouse. Google OCR functions but it doesn't recognize paragraphs. — Ineuw (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It works as usual for me-Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It was freezing for me as described a few minutes ago (didn't freeze the mouse though) but it's working now. Presumably the OCR tool had some kind of transient whoopsie and has now recovered. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the confirmation. It's working now as well.— Ineuw (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Purecannastore and Purecannastore2Edit

I have noticed in the Recent Changes the following notice: "User account Purecannastore2 was created by Purecannastore". At the same time I noticed that user Purecannastore has been blocked indefinitely for spamming. Should the account Purecannastore2 be blocked automatically too? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Yes. And it's a good idea when blocking clear spambots to take a look at the checkboxes at the bottom of the blocking page and tweak them. MW can detect various block-evasion tactics and auto-block things like that. --Xover (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Constitution of MacedoniaEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Not a valid unprotection request. Further followup can happen elsewhere.

Please un-protect Constitution of Macedonia. Amendments XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV AND XXXVI should be added. see[1]--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not done @Mike Rohsopht: This is not a dynamic document, it is a document of the edition, as such it is static to the time of publication. If there is a new version of the document, then it should all be uploaded a fresh with a new date, and we disambiguate the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Rohsopht: I have returned to the version that was contributed which looks like 1992 adn moved it there. Feel free to reach into the history of the edits and grab the versions you need to make your others. At that point we can remove the redirect and disambiguate with a {{versions}} page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:KoavfEdit

I ask another admin to step in and review the posts of @Koavf: on his own talk page in this thread and on my talk page in this thread. In particular, use of the following phrases when addressing me:

  • Why would you remove accessibility features and make the site more hostile to the blind?
  • you're admitting your own ignorance
  • Using your admin rights to then lock it from editing is just petty and childish.
  • I didn't belittle your intelligence: I pointed out how you admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
  • Now please stop being rude and answer my questions.
  • I am not claiming that you are unintelligent but that you are simply ignorant: you don't know what you're talking about.
  • I would have to assume that you're either uninformed or at some point, if you keep on saying it once you know better, you are lying.

I had asked him to stop belittling me [2] at which point he added accusations of lying [3]. I ask an admin to please help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not one that I think that I should be touching. You both are feet stampers, and need to learn to get along. I would ask whether you (collective) both reflect on what is the ultimate goal and the ultimate collective means to achieve. I don't think that either of you are really that far apart, and I would suggest that as a means to resolution that things are brought to the community for a consensus rather than heatedly battled on user talk page, as when one addresses to a matter to the community it is often said differently than when sitting in opposition to a person. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As I see it there is a lack of effort to understand each other’s point of view on both sides and committing to useless verbal fights instead of asking community to help to solve controversial issues. However, it is true that Koavf tends to bring the controversy into the personal level and their arguments are mixed with insults and personal attacks, which has to stop. Hopefully no admin tools will be necessary to enforce it.
As for the two controversies linked above:
  1. The Portal:Yale Shakespeare. I suggest an alternative version of the page is created somewhere and both versions are introduced to the community, explaining their pros and asking for independent opinions.
  2. The controversy over template Portal Parent and the connected heated discussion reminds me of once famous Hyphen War of Czechoslovakia. While I do not see it worth that many words, I also do not understand why that edit was reverted without explaining what was bad about it, and what I understand even less, why one reverted good-faith edit led to protecting the page from all non-admins. I agree that admin tools should be used with big consideration. However, personal attacks are not a solution either. I suggest Koavf makes a suggestion of the change on the portal’s talk page, and unless some important points are raised against, the change can be made.
If this discussion continues, it should probably also move away from the AN to Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Spambot IP range requestEdit

Reviewing data for the spambots mentioned here. IP range request only but notifying the community of my actions, per local protocol. Operator873 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

All done. No common ranges found. A local sysop can remove this if needed. Operator873 (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Noting to the community that was a follow-up request for the telephone support spam recorded below. Thanks for your actions Operator873. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Remove Wikisource-bot from Confirmed usersEdit

This is just general tidying, so no rush…

Wikisource-bot is currently in the manually added Confirmed users group, but the account is also implicitly a member of Autoconfirmed users. These groups confer the exact same permissions, so the only difference is that one is manually assigned and the other is automatic.

Could one of the `crats please uncheck the "confirmed user" checkbox on Special:UserRights/Wikisource-bot? --Xover (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Prune inactive botsEdit

Per WS:AN#Time to prune the bot accounts?, could a `crat please uncheck the "bot" checkbox from the permissions page for each of the bots listed in that discussion? --Xover (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

YouTube hyper-linksEdit

On all pages in this document currently marked “Problematic,” remove the space from y outube.com/watch. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: you want them white-listed, right? Can you make a list in the format:
youtube\.com/watch\?v=[:ID1]
youtube\.com/watch\?v=[:ID2]
....
And I'll whitelist them. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Here’s a list:

youtube\.com/watch\?v=YJ8LfWC1Wks&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=kL_IpqRf8RM youtube\.com/watch\?v=hKBZemnS1j4&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=cufftGM8040&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=jLi-Yo6IucQ youtube\.com/watch\?v=8UzqChhaTP8 youtube\.com/watch\?v=RTK1lm1jk60&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=4dKyreFllgQ youtube\.com/watch\?v=AKYdyTYz6Jw youtube\.com/watch\?v=y9WPuA6EUaw youtube\.com/watch\?v=Fag0aC_M0_U youtube\.com/watch\?v=DOemCrZac4M

  • I have removed listed duplicates. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I have suspended the domain on the blacklist, please add them into place, and come back here when they are done. I think that we may be able to design a sneakaround, let me think it through. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: One option is to deny adding links to non-autoconfirmed (with or without an edit count requirement) users via the AbuseFilter, rather than the spam blacklist, which is a blunt instrument. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, though we can just play with the order of the url rather thanyoutube.com/watch?v=cufftGM8040&feature=emb_logo we have youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_logo&v=cufftGM8040 and the blacklist becomes youtube\.com/watch?\v=billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
What about the ones without the feature=emb_logo junk? And changing the text to circumvent a blacklist we actually have control over seems sub-optimal? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • billinghurst: I have added in the hyper-links to the text. I agree that an autoconfirmed/edit-count abuse filter would be preferable to the many trips here to ask for whitelisting/partial disabling. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

mw:Snippets/Hide prefix in categoryEdit

Found this javacript and its implementation (mw:Template:HideCategoryPrefix) and think that it would be useful in numbers of places, eg. Category:Dictionary of National Biography biographies and maybe category can take multiples variances of rootpagename strings. Doing something else and won't be able to look at it for a little while, so just putting it out there for discussion. It would also be useful to be able to toggle, so something like mw:Snippets/Hide prefix in SpecialPrefixIndex. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mpaa crat resignationEdit

Just a note that, as part of admin confirmation closures today, I have actioned @Mpaa's resignation as bureaucrat.

Hesperian 02:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request removal of admin hatEdit

due to the uncertainty of my future activity level and other considerations. I'll try not to make too many mistakes that require my knocking on doors for tools :) Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Agree on the sympathies of the response, though not certain that we can oppose a resignation. LBJ is well aware that she can keep her tools, and that she can have them back when she desires. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, such sweet resignation. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown. BD2412 T 06:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    or, Uneasy lies the head that wields a broom, as the case may be :) We once had a beloved Diamond dove who displayed signs of fear whenever she saw a broom. I suppose that partly falls under "other considerations." :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    My thoughts are best expressed by User:billinghurst, and hope you return sooner and not later. — Ineuw (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Stewards requested to action Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

New project: Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW)Edit

I have been alerted to this new project by User:Sannita (WMF). They are having "SDAW Happy Hour" meeting next April 15, at 14:00 UTC.

It will be mostly an informal meeting to introduce the project and enjoy a little chat all together. :) The meeting will take place on Google Meet: https://meet.google.com/jrj-jwfw-zua

It will be my 0200, so dodgy for me. I think that there is relevance for us to how we can structure our data, so we can look to have tools that interrogate our data, most especially for easy inhalation into Wikidata for creations, and the pull and interlinks. (our usual story). @Xover, @Inductiveload: it may better suit you? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'll try to pen in an appearance there just to watch for any impacts that hit us.
But I have to warn you, this effort will address none of the things you outline. Its focus is exclusively Wikipedia, and the unique structure of pages on the Wikipedias, and appears to be motivated mostly by making Wikipedia Enterprise Edition™ more commercially viable (well, that and the CompSci aliens that think Wikifunctions is a good idea). --Xover (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Well, actually SDAW is a different project from Enterprise. SDAW is the follow-up project of Structured Data on Commons, as you can read on the MediaWiki page about the project, so we're building mostly from that idea - but we're actively seeking feedback also from projects other than Wikipedia, because... well, there isn't just Wikipedia out there!
Anyway, if you can make it to the meeting, I think we can discuss this verbally, which usually is a better way to clarify things. :) See you there! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hide Print/export (p-wikisource-export-portlet) in edit modeEdit

Can we please hide #p-wikisource-export-portlet when in edit mode. Unneeded in that ode and it is pushing down other components in my LH sidebar. Presuming that it is best to hide in the JS, rather than having to write it into CSS. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have filed a ticket to stop the server sending it at all. If nothing happens there, we could add this to global CSS:
.action-edit #p-wikisource-export-portlet {
    display: none;
}
But that's a hack if we could get it sorted server-side. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't remember where the guts of operations occurred. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

“added trigger word” filterEdit

I have been triggering this filter quite a bit recently; what are the “trigger word[s]” anyway? (I’m pretty sure “gay” is one of them, from older works, but I don’t know what word this page triggered.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: In this case, it's being set off by the abbreviation for "Association". The list is a rather ad-hoc collection of various, mostly sexual and scatological, swear words and a few things other things that very often indicate vandalism by particularly unimaginative vandals.
Though, actually, it's set to "if not autopatrol" and probably we can bump to "if not autoconfirmed", since we do get a lot of false positives due mostly to "gay" and "ass...". @Billinghurst: sensible?
Also I think TE(æ)A,ea. can be happily autopatrolled, after 34k edits (!) So I have done that. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! (I agree with your proposal, by the way.) Is there some way to allow public access to the list? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
If we wanted the list to be public, then we would make it public. The purpose of not doing so is that we don't want people cherrypicking their vandalism. We don't ever worry about abusefilters, as for us they are more editfilters and alerts, and include some abuse. We know that the childish vandalism can include real usage, so it is only ever an indicator of something to check. @Inductiveload: I have been thinking that we could probably exclude the Page: ns as the twits generally just appear in the main ns, and other front-facing pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: that works too, I guess. Though I still think "autoconfirmed" is probably a better proxy for good intentions because non-vandals gain that fairly quickly and automatically, plus it can be revoked, putting the user back under the supervision of the filter.
BTW I have tweaked the regexen around the f-bomb, since "Fukien" (i.e. old-style w:Fujian) was being unfairly caught, which has been spamming the logs a bit. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Autoconfirmed, as a filterng here for our (lack of) criterion, never does much for me. Too easy for LTAs to avoid if they created as an enWP account, see https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php (wgAutoConfirmAge/wgAutoConfirmCount) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request move of Bisbee Daily Review/1917/04/04 to Bisbee Daily Review/1917/04/03Edit

The content at Bisbee Daily Review/1917/04/04 appears to actually be the issue for April 3, not April 4. Could this page and its subpages be moved to the appropriate URL? Thanks. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

deleted pageEdit

What happened at the page Author:Ludwig Leichardt? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Created with junk, presumably someone followed a redlink. I have created and then turned into a redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I would have made the redirect go the other way. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The page was existing, I just created the redirect. Anyway, the guidance we developed years ago is to expand the names to be the target page, not contract. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
We would say that … CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Move pages after file change on File:Colorado Federal and State Constitution (2020).pdfEdit

Hello all -- so when I uploaded File:Colorado Federal and State Constitution (2020).pdf I wasn't thinking all the way through and ended up changing the file and renaming it over on commons to File:Colorado State Constitution (2020).pdf. The redirect is currently working just fine--nothing is broken at the moment. But I now have a batch move job that needs to be done to avoid the file redirect. I can do it myself if that's easier for everybody, but it would take me a bit and administrators seem to have more tools for this kind of batch work. Basically, what needs to happen:

Let me know if you'd prefer for me to do this myself; I'm happy to do it, just want to make sure it gets done correctly and in a way that causes minimal headache (beyond the headache I've already created). Thank you all so much -- Mathmitch7 (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathmitch7: Done. For future reference, there is no requirement to move the Commons file on a "renaming" procss, in fact we would say please do not move the Commons file once transcription is well under way. You can create a redirect at Commons and fix all the metadata in the book teplate. And prior to you saying that Commons requires it, this situation is specifically mentioned as an exclusion to their rename policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You got it. I really appreciate the work, billinghurst. Thank you! Mathmitch7 (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Slowking4 ban elsewhereEdit

This account is banned elsewhere. Requesting a checkuser before opening this would seem advisable, but the screed above says I must discuss it here first. If this becomes the subject of debate I will immediately take it up with the office. I propose that they are blocked and talk page and email access is disabled. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for a ban, a checkuser, or both? One before the other? It's not clear.
Wikisource:CheckUser policy says "A check may only be performed if there is evidence of abuse, or following a request by the user being checked." Can you present evidence of abuse on this wiki? BethNaught (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is clear they have the same agenda 10 years on, but highlighting their efforts at disruption would feed them. The evidence given in bans elsewhere is more than enough for an immediate ban here. I'm greatly bothered I did not raise this concern when I found out, but I assumed it was known and being managed somehow. Can respondents please make an at least cursory glance at their activities elsewhere, and please don't comment unless absolutely necessary. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Cf. Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2020-09#m:Requests_for_comment/Global_ban_for_Slowking4.
Several members of the enWS community (full disclosure: myself included) made it pretty clear at the linked discussion at Meta that they do not support a global ban based on behaviour at a subset of wikis. The implication being that Slowking4 should not be banned at enWS for actions only occurring elsewhere. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)We are fully aware that this account has been banned on some (four?) other places. And that there was an extensive RFC on Meta asking for a global ban (m:Requests_for_comment/Slowking4). The RFC was closed as inconclusive. Amongst the arguments adduced in that discussion was the question of whether a ban on one of the sisters necessiated a ban on sisters where the problems were none or minimal. My reading of the discussion is that it doesn't. I'm not sure which previous user you believe this user to be socking, however they are not Poetlister. The editing patterns are too different. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, spamming, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects.

The tool should not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to use the CheckUser tools to investigate a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (examples of violations include double-voting, increasing the apparent support for any given position, or to evade blocks or bans).…

m:CheckUser_policy#Use of the tool

  Comment I see no (current) evidence of behaviour that is disrupting the wiki to enable a checkuser request. Happy for that evidence to be presented. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I explicitly asked before opening this thread for the information that others have now provided. Given that information I have nothing further to add in response to other comments, except that I'm not so much concerned for myself. I did not realise they had been made welcome. I acknowledge this is the decision that has already been made. I will avoid interacting with them again, it would be impolite of me to do otherwise under the circumstances. Again, Billinghurst, information that would have been useful yesterday, or when I had chatted with them before. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Will anyone venture to formalise this tradition as a local policy, informing regular contributors from en.wikipedia, commons, wikidata, and small sister sites that this sort of thing occurs? I admit I cannot not imagine the form that would take, and that my phrasing of the 'thing' seems dismissive. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
What is it that you want as policy? What tradition? What sort of things happen? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I clearly don't want the policy based on the unwritten rules that form the tradition, using this space as a borstel for those who are more interested in their indignation than contributing to content. I can show the tradition instead of reading Chesterton, perhaps it would be useful to others to outline 'what sort of things happened' from my own perspective. Remind us, @Billinghurst: of what happened before I asked the question at poseyblisters admin nomination. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 23:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment Hang on, having long conversations about person bans in that subject thread was in my view inappropriate. AND ...

  • I explicitly said that I would answer questions outside of that thread.
  • Quillercouch/Longfellow/Poetlister was not in my mind for that discussion:

I definitely know about OUR bans, and did not intimate that I didn't. I said that I don't know particulars about other community's bans—and here I am differentiating between bans and infinite blocks.

I especially note that after Poetlister's ban, I spent the next five plus years in my time as checkuser checking his haunts, and talking to other CUs here and other wikis about this person. It was a regular touchpoint between Hesperian and myself as local 'crat <=> CU discussions. Noting that the checking task now sits with WMF T&S as they banned him and took over that responsibility with their better, automated tools. FYI If I had a clue that Poetlister was here socking, I wouldn't be calling for a checkuser, I would be straight to T&S and/or stewards getting them to run checks. If anything I know that system. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  • The question here was never about that 'persona', and I was almost completely in the dark until you splayed it out now. I'm glad you are willing to act on that matter, I have submitted to the will of the above on this matter. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I cannot speak for others on how they react to blocks and bans on other sites, though here is my philosophy, which guides my actions. Noting that I am a simple person—maybe a complex simple person, whichever, the simple is in there somewhere. I am a KISS proponent. {{collapse top|bg=LightGrey|reason=blathering}}{{collapse bottom}} People who know me may nod or shake there heads in laughter or disagreement. Not something that I would usually compile, though most likely said by be me at some place at some time. I may regret adding it, and I may delete it at a point prior to archiving.

This is my favourite wiki community as it has been accepting; it has diversity and it has worked hard on building consensus, building a governing style that allows for reasonable variation, and supporting it as a community. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I appreciate that you took the time to outline your approach. The only true thing I can glean from this business is that you are practicing compassion toward another individual. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course. Though it is more than altruism. enWP and certain individuals waste so much time chasing those they have blocked with a scorched earth approach that feeds the troll. If someone sneaks back in a corner and edits within scope, and occupies themselves that way, isn't that win-win? Busy hands, occupied mind. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see any argument here, and I find the discouraging of discussion and explicit refusal to provide links for anything to be disturbing. I think the most responsible thing would be to end this discussion right now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Prosfilaes: I agree with the first part, but it doesn't accord with the second sentence. I'm assuming you still wish me gone with good riddance. I'm not here to prosecute a case for a local ban, I think a global ban is a matter of community safety. Were you aware of the Slowking4 account's bans elsewhere? Were you aware of the private arrangements for the poetlister admin nomination before it emerged? Would you like links to our discussions about that at the time? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
    I don't always have a great memory, but if you assume that I wish you gone with good riddance, I'll assume that there's good reason for me to do so. I don't really remember your past actions here, and while I saw some of your current behavior as unseemly, I thought it better to let it go. This is not the place for a global ban discussion, so don't bring it here. If there is something relevant to this board, please make your case as if before a neutral arbitrator who knows nothing of local conditions, not as we all resided in your head.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Spam/SpambotEdit

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report it, but could an admin please take action against Rajah12 as a spammer/spambot and mass-delete their creations? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pahunkat:   Done , thank you for the report. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Inductiveload! I just happened to find another spamming the same phone number: Camillia4. Pahunkat (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I have made changes to the global m:Title blacklist that should prevent these forms into the future. Of course, they will evolve their scripts and something will come back at some stage. It is a very powerful blunt hammer, and I will prod through the internals to see if I can pick some other components that may be indicators. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-free content in The librarian’s copyright companionEdit

This work has a number of appendixes, which contain copyrighted content. They are: Appendixes D (pp. 195 ff.), J (pp. 221 ff.), K (pp. 231 ff.), L (pp. 237 ff.), and N (pp. 267 ff.). The work is itself freely licensed, but these appendixes are not, and should be removed. The page spacing should remain in place, however. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to delete the appendices and upload a new version, at which point we could just ask a Commons admin to rev-delete the old version. If that's a good approach, let me know. I can do it this weekend. -Pete (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Also pinging @Xover: who uploaded a new version of this from the original page scans, and may know something more. I was unaware of the text layer issue you mentioned. The file you uploaded is about 20x the size of the earlier one...if I were to take this on, I'd like to know whether or not it's important to preserve this high quality, or whether a higher level of compression (or black-and-white, etc.) would be acceptable. -Pete (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth @TE(æ)A,ea.: Thanks for the headsup. I've uploaded a new version with the offending pages redacted (replaced with placeholder pages).
Regarding the file size… We should generally not optimise for file size here, both because we need all the image quality we can get for good OCR results, but also because the thumbnail generation does not scale linearly with file size (i.e. smaller file size has rapidly diminishing returns in terms of interactive performance). That being said, this is the kind of work where it should have been possible to dramatically improve compression without significant loss of quality, but unfortunately it's been printed with a (relatively) light grey text colour on a light yellow background (presumably acidic paper) that leaves too little foreground/background contrast for easy automatic conversion to bilinear. It doesn't help that there are graphic boxes with faux drop shadows on a large proportion of pages, also in a light grey colour. Long story short: this was the best tradeoff between size and quality that I found at the time.
I'll take another look to see if I can find a way to improve the compression without adversely affecting quality (mainly because the method would probably have general applicability), but no guarantees. Xover (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Xover: Thanks. This page needs to have the first two revisions deleted. Also, it would be nice if you could remove the redactions on the titles of the non-free appendixes, but that’s not necessary. There is also some concern about the copyright status of the “American Meteorological Society Journals Online Subscription Agreement,” which is non-free and found (in part?) on pp. 127 ff. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    @TE(æ)A,ea.:   Done Old versions of the wikipage revdel'ed and the additional pages in the DjVu have been partially redacted (hiding the contract text, keeping the commentary). Xover (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

please block, blanking spree:Edit

special:Contribs/99.228.69.150 -Pete (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth:   Done (and globally locked too). Thanks for the headsup. Xover (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Heads upEdit

Noting that this relates to blocked TwilightSparkleBlocker453 (talkcontribs). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Renewal of Interface Admin rightsEdit

My Interface Admin bit is about to expire (it was a 6 month thing) and I'm not done breaking things! Could it please be renewed? IIRC, this needs a 'crat to do. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended for a further six months. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Thank you! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Beeswaxcandle, @BD2412: Note that the intent was that renewal of Inductiveload's Interface Admin rights would be rolled into their annual confirmation, like is the practice with other additional/supplementary permissions. See the original discussion. --Xover (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Requesting small edit on a protected source with locked talk pageEdit

Hello! The capitalization of "On the Creation of Niggers" by H. P. Lovecraft does not match with the capitalization found in the Brown University source. As this racist poem drew too much discussion beyond the work, the talk page has also been nulled and locked, so I can't use {{edit protected}}.

Here are the problems I found:
The second instance of "Man" should not be capitalized at all, while the last word should be all capitals.unsigned comment by SashKhe (talk) .

  • I would like to extend this request to ask for the creation of an index page (from here, two pages). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @SashKhe: The two corrections you proposed have been implemented. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/DiscussionEdit

If this is incorrectly placed, please move to a more appropriate location for general administrator attention.

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikisource administrators and other users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikisource here, or at the linked page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Comment There is a range of consultations taking place around enforcement per m:Universal Code of Conduct enforcement roundtable discussions. I am meant to be at the meeting for Stewards and global sysops, though somewhat depends on the time held. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

spammer should be blockedEdit

User:Bajsdwer -Pete (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  •   Done They've been busy tonight. This is at least the third fourth account created to post this spam around. BD2412 T 04:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment further updated the title blacklist. This is manual spamming where they are adapting and power forcing it manually. Problem with title blacklist is that it rejects the edit, and lets them try again with no consequence, and the log for that is not available. I can write some filters that just warn and block if that is preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

special:abusefilter/43 and it gives a temporary goolies kick, so will need an admin intervention to completely stop it. Filter will take additional strings pretty easily. I see we have a lot more hits in the special:abuselog than edits, so the defences were pretty good. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Line 18 looks a bit scary for an auto-blocking filter. I'm pretty sure I've seen that in legitimate use in texts that would be in scope. Xover (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Happy to null it, do note line 3 which makes it pretty limiting. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it'd probably be fine as it was, but when the action is blocking I'm a little paranoid. Xover (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Adrena45 caught by the filter and blocked. Also worth noting that there is an xwiki element, with instances on enwiktionary of the same phone number. Pahunkat (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Might be worth upgrading blocks to indef on that user, as well as having a look at Onlineworkfor and Helpsupportus which have tripped filters and been given 2 hour (now expired) blocks. Pahunkat (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Accounts have already been blocked. I have made some minor mods to global title blacklist and to local abuse filters. Neither of these will be perfect, this is the style and pointlessness of the spam. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment I have asked for CU check per m:special:diff/21510508. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing this spam stream in its entirety, seems to be page_title as the aim, with the body as incidental filler. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: abuse filters working in this space — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource:User access levelsEdit

I have thrown together this page to reflect what I understand as our current groups/access levels, and our current processes for gaining those access levels. I would appreciate someone/some people reviewing it for sanity and confirming that it reflects our practices.

It was starting as a page to reflect the change to criteria for autoconfirmed and the others just came with it. If the page is agreed as being correct and our practice, I will look to see that we have it suitably linked elsewhere. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If there is no comment, then I will look to further linking to the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I just (finally) had a look at it. It looks great, and I've sometimes wanted such an overview page myself so I'm definitely all for it. I took the liberty of expanding the text a bit for autoconfirmed and autopatrolled since those are the two most commonly encountered groups of relevance to new contributors. Feel free to revert if that doesn't fit with your conception of the page.
In any case, thanks for setting it up! Xover (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Revdel RequestEdit

[4] Accidentally edited without logging in, is it possible to revel this version as my IP address reveals personal information. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster:   Done Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

2603:8080:A800:9888:0:0:0:1DBAEdit

Anonymous user creating “H” spam; please delete and block. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.:   Done Thanks for the headsup! Xover (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

2400:4052:2C80:4600:6525:6ECF:9493:3EC6Edit

Another (I think) user creating Japanese-language spam; please delete and block. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.:   Done Thanks! Xover (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.   Done Thanks! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

User:94.193.215.177Edit

Blatant vandalism. Bored kid. Jarnsax (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jarnsax: It does not appear to be ongoing so I see no particular need for further action. Thanks for the headsup, and please drop a note here if they go back at it. Xover (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Xover Yup yup. Just never know from 'out here' if you've already nuked a pile of similar stuff already. Jarnsax (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A Sippy Sip SipEdit

Header vandalism. Please revert/delete and block. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Block neededEdit

To accompany the block already done on WlKlMEDlA_FOUNDATION_IS_RUN_BY_WHITE_SUPREMACISTS, please block I_TAKE_MY_ANGER_OUT_ON_WIKIS. Whether these module pages need protecting is something to consider.

I'll keep watching for more. Is this the correct place to note these? The closest equivalent to w:WP:AIV? Shenme (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Already done globally. Yes, this is the correct place to let us know of any that we miss. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Another blockEdit

Of Long Term Abuse Account. (At least it’s appropriately named.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Since one of today's pages duplicates the above section's vboy, and another page is same area as yesterday, we just have a frequent flyer. I keep refreshing Recent Changes but LTAA snuck in while I was editing. (sigh) Shenme (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
One of our pet(ty) LTAs. <shrug> I have protected some pages, and flagged a couple of things to inductiveload for more sustainable solutions. Their actions are xwiki, and the accounts and IP have been managed by stewards — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hyperactivity notedEdit

Poor person's first edit gets whacked because the edit had telephone numbers?

They changed

<pages index="Lange - The Blue Fairy Book.djvu" from=382 to=408 header=1 />

to

<pages index="Lange - The Blue Fairy Book.djvu" from=382 to=415 exclude=408 header=1 />

Horrors? Shenme (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Shenme Looks to me like a bad abusefilter match, I'd expect some admin to reverse it shortly now that you have pointed it out. From looking at the edit (and the book) it was correct, and obviously not vandalism. Jarnsax (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Unblocked. Yes, false positive. I will look at it. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. It was not the edit above, though. I was trying to change
<pages index="The Red Fairy Book.djvu" from=353 to=364 />
to
<pages index="The Red Fairy Book.djvu" from=353 to=363 />
in The Red Fairy Book/Snowdrop. Page 364 belongs to the next chapter.
Should I try again or will it trigger the filter? --Morgray (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Morgray I just tried it now for you, and didn't get the abusefilter warning. Either it's been fixed, or the filter takes account age (being autoconfirmed or not) into account... that would be logical on such a filter. Jarnsax (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! --Morgray (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Indeed account age is a primary factor. An edit count over 10 should also disable the filter. Sorry about the inconvenience, Morgray, we are happy to meet you, promise! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Abuselog should now be a lot cleanerEdit

Hi. The abuselog will now be a lot cleaner as the second attempt to have spam blacklist extension to act prior to the abusefilters has been successful. We will now be back to seeing a lot more hits in special:log/spamblacklist. Woop woop. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Good news :-) --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Defamation and harrasmentEdit

Hello, would you please tell Wee Curry Monster to stop discussing me, my intentions, and what I have said (since he's, intentionally or not, putting words in my mouth that I have not expressed) in articles, authors and users' talk pages? I believe those places are to discuss content and not users. This is the place to do so.

Edits I find irritating and which I don't really feel like answering: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Thanks, Langus-TxT (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that the situation is in hand as their are resolutions to the specific issues. We all find some edits irritating—some reasonably, some unreasonably. So we all try to edit to the policy and have discussions, and not have the edit wars. I trust our admins and experienced users to see through hyperbole and try to politely explain and resolve issues. You are correct that conversations should not get personal, nor should they try to guess another's intent. Adding a ping to Prosfilaes so they are aware of your concerns about the discussion on their talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

IP socking (LTA?)Edit

I'm only passing by right now, so I can't keep an eye on anything myself in the next few hours, but there's some kind of IP socking going on at Page:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu/147. I have protected the page for a short period for non-autoconfirmed users and blocked the various IPs involved for a day.

Just a heads-up in case they don't get the hint and go and be completely hilarious somewhere else. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at some edit summaries by the IPs, I'm pretty sure this is w:WP:LTA/GRP, who has been targeting me on enwiki earlier today. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
More spews today. I counted 6 different proxies editing on the referenced area. Shenme (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Page protected and edits rev-del. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Gerard de VanEdit

There is a vandal adding "Gerard de Van" to names of various authors, using different IPs (2001:8003:2208:6700:5DFF:251C:2CF0:C9F7 ; 2001:8003:2208:6700:45A5:A5D1:9E05:8293 ; 2001:8003:365A:7500:B8CD:6413:286F:C77C). The vandal attacks not only Wikisource, but other projects too. I suggest to blacklist the expression "Gerard de Van". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Support a filter for users less than autoconfirmed, maybe for a year or so. There are no results for "Gerard de Van" across all of Wikisource, so it shouldn't be a problem. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: No objection. But, for future reference: blocking IPs for more than maybe a week max is a bad idea. IPs get reassigned frequently (often as a matter of hours) which means 1) longer blocks have zero effect on the vandal, and 2) it catches innocent future users of that address up in the block. And indefinite IP blocks linger literally forever. I think the longest really useful IP block is three days, after which we need to start looking at using tools like the blacklist. Xover (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, I understand. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Block length of IP addresses depends whether they are static or dynamic addresses, though typically I would start a block for one day and see if they return (toolforge:ipcheck). I wouldn't typically fuss short term blocks being too long as they are less likely to be problematic in the short term for us. Definitely don't do infinite blocks; and long term blocks should be based on long term abuse, typically I would do creeping doom.

With regard to filters, having something so simple as a match will typically just cause them to go to a variation. Hard text match filters only is truly effective against spambots, and other non-interpretative editors. There will be something that we can do. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes they find a page which already includes the name "Gerard" and add only "de Van", like here (I also saw other examples in other wikiprojects). Although we cannot exclude the possibility that rarely there may appear the need to add "de van" to some text, I suggest blacklisting "de Van" too, at least for some very short period. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I have had a look at 10 entries and have written global-290 to disallow. Though I have also blocked 2x /32 IP ranges for a month to dissuade his editing here for a while, so we should sit a little more comfortably for a little while. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrol requestEdit

Please give User:Richard Nevell autopatrolled status; he's a Wikimedian in long-term good standing, and I can vouch for him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? What's he need it for? Xover (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
You can find an explanation of why Autpatrolled is used at Wikisource:Autopatrolled. That's the reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Denied. Being in "good standing" with Wikimedia is not the sole criterion for autopatrolled. The user should also demonstrate familiarity with Wikisource policy and with Wikisource's style guide, and should have made sufficient good edits that it is more efficient to have the editor's contributions autopatrolled. Richard Nevell made five edits in 2021, and only about 60 edits in total on Wikisource, most of them on 15 October 2020. There is insufficient demonstration that he understands Wikisource policy or our Style Guide, and thus he does not at this time meet the criteria as described at Wikisource:Autopatrolled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, we have long used AP a little differently than other wikis, our usage has not been about trust, and about compliance to our style guide. The other way that we set up AP differently is that we give the ability to patrol to all accounts, so anyone can patrol edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough to me, and I still feel I'm learning about the style guide. Thank you Andy for suggesting it, and thank you EncycloPetey and Billinghurst for the explanation. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
And for the record I trust Richard Nevell implicitly too. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of PagesEdit

I had been finishing an index that was started and idle for some five years, Index:Chesterton_-_Eugenics_and_Other_Evils_(Cassell,_1922).djvu. I was five minutes away from completing this when account @Hilohello: saved out remaining pages as 'not proofread' 30 seconds ahead of me. They have ignored my request for an explanation, because I assume it is pretty obviously trolling. I am requesting that a non-billinghurst admin delete their contributions to that index. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: While someone stepping on your toes is obviously never too fun, what actual problem does the existence of the pages create?
@Hilohello: When a fellow contributor raises an issue with you on your user talk page (or a different page, for that matter) you need to respond and participate constructively in resolving the disagreement. That is the only way a collaborative project like Wikisource can function. In this particular case I would like to hear what your reasoning was for swooping in on a text that Cygnis insignis was already working on, at the last minute, and for creating pages that were Not proofread. If you wanted to help out you could have Validated some of the existing pages instead of getting in their way, as I notice other contributors have previously requested of you without getting a response. Xover (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: ta for the quick reply. There are several problems with merely saving out a page, although there is a single advantage that may be seen as beneficial to the site. I regard these as secondary concerns, I had prepared to proofread the pages before the edit conflict was generated (and finish the excellent book I was reading). I have perhaps generated two side discussions to this incident, but think my immediate request is worth expediting. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't realize someone was working on it. (I am not very observant) Sorry! --Hilohello (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hilohello: We all make mistakes, and can miss things at times. But I am a little concerned that you somehow found your way to fill in the last 9 (of 200) pages of a text without noticing that it was actively being worked on, when you created your first page within 60 seconds of the previous page being saved. I am also rather concerned that you did not respond on your user talk page when the issue was brought up there, not until after the issue was also raised at the administrators noticeboard. And I am still wondering why you're creating pages as "Not proofread". I would appreciate it if you could address these concerns. --Xover (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Well, the editing of a page in the book which I had made reminded me the book existed, so I was clicked over and was like "Oh, hey, looks like it's almost done! I can 100% it right now, no problem!" As for why they were marked "not proofread" I was scolded once for saving new pages as "Proofread" so I figured it was Not Done. And I didn't respond immediately to Cygnis on my talk page because I didn't really understand what s/he was complaining about. Sorry! (also, I only recently figured out how to work the signature) --Hilohello (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Hilohello: Thank you. In future: 1) if someone raises an issue with you on your user talk page you should engage with them to resolve that issue, including asking for clarification if you don't understand what the issue is they are raising; 2) you need to read up on Help:Page status and use the page status system properly (creating pages as "Not proofread" should be an exception, not the norm), or ask for help on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help if you need it; 3) I strongly advice you to pay attention to avoid stepping on others' ongoing work.
And in regards #3, while collaboration is in the nature of the project, the nature of proofreading is such that for a single text many contributors will strongly prefer to do all of it linearly and themselves. Stepping in to "help" will often not be particularly well received if it disrupts their flow. Either pick a different text to work on, work on something that will not get in their way (like Validating the pages they have Proofread), or ask what, if anything, they would like help with. For large multi-volume projects there's plenty to do for everyone, and easy and natural ways to divvy up the tasks, but for a ~200 page novel with a continuous narrative that's not the case. And in the big picture we have a functionally infinite amount of work to do, so stepping on each others' toes really shouldn't be necessary.
@Cygnis insignis: The pages created appear to have been created in good faith and with Proofread text (just mislabelled). Under those circumstances we don't really have grounds to delete them. You can of course further improve them to make them consistent with the rest of the work; and if their existence causes some actual technical hindrance to your work we can see if there's a way to resolve that as a separate issue. Xover (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I won't be doing the 'make consistent' on this 'novel'. @Xover: Have you used other accounts at this site? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I don't think I understand what it is you are asking. Could you please clarify? Xover (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: I am unable to make it any clearer without make a patronising explication of the terms in this context. I suppose you might ask why am I asking, but I hoped to clarify something that is bothering me and carry on with the fun stuff. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Indeed, I was checking whether there might be some alternate interpretation of your question or, failing that, why you would ask that question. Given the general stance of every single Wikimedia project regarding using undisclosed multiple accounts it is a fairly loaded question to bring up without preamble. In other words, I am hoping you will clarify your intent so that I can respond appropriately. Xover (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • CYGNIS INSIGNIS: The problem you mention is real, and I have felt the trouble with it before. However, that is not what happened in this case. A comparison of the OCR and the pages as marked indicates that the pages should have been marked as proofread, rather than not proofread; it does not indicate that the pages were merely created in an OCR dump, as frequently happens. Your actions seem unnecessarily rude to the other editor involved, which reflects poorly on your mischaracterization of the situation. While it was without the standard practice of our community for another editor to proofread those pages instead of you, the pages were, nonetheless, proofread, and should not be deleted. Hilohello: In the future, mark those pages as “proofread,” rather than “not proofread.” There have been problems in the past and presently with users creating pages en masse as “not proofread” of indexes worked on by others, which, in most cases, disrupts the normal proofreading process. However, the pages you created were proofread, which is not so disruptive. You should generally avoid doing work which others were doing when such work is at a smaller scale, like it was here; but that is not stated policy, and it wasn’t clear (it seems) that you realized this; in the future, be somewhat more cautious. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Conversation seems stale, probably can mark as resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Move request for Index:My-home-town-music.pdfEdit

Hi, I'd appreciate it if Index:My-home-town-music.pdf and its pages could be moved to Index:My Home Town music.pdf etc., and then File:My-home-town-music.pdf could be deleted as a duplicate. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 23:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae:   Done Xover (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

South Carolina Exposition and ProtestEdit

The following discussion is closed:
resolved

Please lock this page—frequent IP-based vandalism. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Eh. By request, I put a one-day autoconfirmed users only protection on it. I'm not sure it really needed even that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Author:Joanne Kathleen RowlingEdit

The following discussion is closed:
resolved

Administrator-protected page, thus this request. The pages shows a death date of “fl. 2021,” which is not appropriate in this case because she is still alive and known to be so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

This is not something special about Rowling: it's because she has a Wikidata floruit (P1317) property set. (see d:Q34660#P1317). Any author with no death and a floruit date will come out like this. It's done in Module:Author#L-133. Based on WD's property description date when the person was known to be active or alive, when birth or death not documented, it sounds like this just should not be set. As is traditional at WD, I can't find clear info on about it (d:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2020/06#floruit_(fl.), the last linked discussion on the Property talk page, is not very helpful). 22:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  deprecated I am comfortable to deprecate that property on the item as it is not a regular addition to items. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Move requestEdit

The following discussion is closed:
resolved

Could Index:United Nations Resolution No. 69-131 (International Day of Yoga).djvu and Page:United Nations Resolution No. 69-131 (International Day of Yoga).djvu/1 be moved to Index:United Nations Resolution No. 69-131 (International Day of Yoga).pdf and Page:United Nations Resolution No. 69-131 (International Day of Yoga).pdf/1 respectively? The DJVU file isn't showing up right on Wikisource, and this means transclusion using <pages /> doesn't work at United Nations Resolution No. 69-131 (International Day of Yoga). —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 23:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done something is very wrong with that DjVu indeed! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 00:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Move request for Aunt Jo's Scrap-BagEdit

The following discussion is closed.

At the moment, the volumes for this work are at separate root pages:

  1. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 1
  2. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 2
  3. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 3
  4. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 4
  5. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 5
  6. Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag, Volume 6

I'd like these pages, and their many subpages, to be moved to subpages of Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag (Aunt Jo's Scrap-Bag/Volume 1 etc.). Thanks! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 06:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae   Done . Chalk up another one from User:Inductiveload/false root pages ^_^. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 01:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pge/Index resynch request...Edit

The following discussion is closed.

Affected Page's

The scans concerned were renamed at Commons, meaning these Page: s needed to be resynched with the renamed Index. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


Also as whole Index:-



I think a more closer examination of Index/Uploads by the relevant contributor might be needed, to fully resync everything properly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Doing... . But please in future express an index moves simply with all of the following:
  • old index
  • new index
  • list of pages ranges to move (e.g. 1-12, 637-639 is sufficient), or all pages (and ideally, note if there are no pages)
  • page offset (0 if the same page numbers).
If (and only if) you are requesting a shift within an existing index, the new index is omitted.
Not doing this wastes the time of the person doing the move and also make mistakes more likely as there is no built-in double-check. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I think they're all   Done . Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Index move request for Index:Works_of_Plato_his_first_fifty-five_dialogues.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed.

Per the instructions for requesting an Index move.

Reason for move : Renamed at commons per (Commons file renaming criteria 4) - Harmonisation of naming for multi-volume set.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

(Aside: Would it be possible to have a query or database report which identifies Index: pages whose title is different from the filename used at Commons, or where the nominal File: page is a redirect?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done Thank you for the clear instructions.
There might be a way to find such cases, I'll have a think. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Pages move request for Index:Hvd-hnjwfx-1638317588.pdfEdit

The following discussion is closed.

Pursuant to the instructions for requesting an index move.

  • Move type: Pages only move. Index already re-titled?
  • Old name: Index:Hvd-hnjwfx-1638317588.pdf
  • New name: Phaedon (Dacier, 1833).pdf
  • Extant Pages:1-2, 218-223
  • Offset: 0

Reason for move : Retitled file. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done , sorry about that. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Move request: Author:John Curtis (entomologist) to Author:John CurtisEdit

The following discussion is closed.

Requesting this here since I created Author:John Curtis and only then noticed that Author:John Curtis (entomologist) existed, so I can't make the move myself. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 01:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@CalendulaAsteraceae   Done . Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Something very strange happened here - it looks like it followed its own redirect several times while deleting. I think it's sorted out now. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible to delete a string of pages?Edit

The following discussion is closed.

Is it possible to delete pages 64 to 103 of this index? Index:Recollections of My Boyhood.djvu

Somehow the match & split got off by one page, so all of these matched the wrong text. If deleting this subset is not possible, maybe delete all pages, and I will redo the match? -Pete (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth I did you one better and just shifted the page range up by one. :-) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Fantastic, thank you! -Pete (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Block Page move Request for Index: Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 21.djvuEdit

The following discussion is closed.

  • Index: Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 21.djvu
  • Page range: 331-383
  • Offset:+1
  • Reason: Realign dumped text to scans. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
      Done Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Cannot create page — "Image abuser"?Edit

The following discussion is closed.

Hello, I am trying to update the page I Am a Cat by adding its third chapter. When I try to submit the edit, however, I am told that the edit was automatically recognized as malicious, and therefore not saved. The only information I am given is: `Image abuser (import of global AF/219)`. I don't understand what this means, as my edit contains no image at all and I am simply trying to post a chapter of prose; nor do I (as far as I know) have a history of image abuse, whatever that might entail. Please let me know if there is anything that can be done. Edit: to add more detail, I am able to post the entire content I intended to upload if that would help in identifying the problem. Kiril kovachev (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kiril kovachev This is a filter that was implemented (I think, I wasn't an admin then) in response to a LTA that had certain unique signatures in the text combined with accounts with under 5 edits (this is why you hit it). Since the LTA in question seems to have gone away, I have changed the filter to allow edits and just tag for review in case they come back. You should be able to make the edit now. Sorry for the inconvenience. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your quick response! And indeed, I was able to edit without a problem. Thanks again for your help, and have a good day :) Kiril kovachev (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kiril kovachev thank you for your contribution to Wikisource! :-) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Request to move a page with subpagesEdit

The following discussion is closed.

Could someone please move this page, along with its subpages?

Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California

to

Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California (Ye Galleon)

(or a better title if that's incorrect; maybe (1982) is a better way to disambiguate?)

I'd like to make a "versions" page at the current title. I didn't properly understand Wikisource's approach to different editions when I first set up these pages. -Pete (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done (to Route across the Rocky Mountains with a Description of Oregon and California (1982)). I updated the TOC, but please check for other broken links, etc. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed interaction banEdit

The following discussion is closed:
There is no apparent support for the proposed interaction ban.

  • Can I suggest an interaction ban between myself and Billinghurst. If my entries need patrolling, it should be done by someone else that has no past history between us. Billinghurst has a record of enforcing his personal preferences selectively on my entries. As I reported earlier he was imposing rules he wrote under THIS IS A DRAFT!!! as !Wikilaw and instead of acknowledging them as draft rules, his response was to remove the THIS IS A DRAFT!!! title. There are a half-dozen ways that newspaper entries are being formatted, and there seems to be no rush to harmonize them, but Billinghurst is in a rush to change my entries, remove all wikilinks, delete entries I am transcribing, and most recently moving a valid entry out of mainspace. He is enforcing subjective rules selectively against me. I get the feeling that there is some personal animus involved and I am being put through a punitive audit for challenging him on the naming of an author entry recently. --RAN (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
As I said on your user page. Please only add things that fit the criteria of Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. At this time you are the only one bringing in family letters that have no notability, or to people of no discernible notability. As you yourself said you have transcribed some things at Ancestry, and that seems the appropriate place for items of a general genealogical and family history nature. Plus the works were not deleted, they were moved to your user space. I also asked for your wikilinks to comply to Wikisource:Wikilinks. Every time that this has happened, I have explained to you how it is out of scope.

Complaining here that I am supposedly enforcing my point of view when you have not demonstrated that the works are in scope, or that the linking is not out of scope is problematic. Stop complaining about me and demonstrate that the works are notable for inclusion here, and that the wikilinks that you did comply with our guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem, you are rigorously enforcing fuzzy subjective policy as if it is strict objective !Wikilaw and focusing on my entries, which feels like harassment. The more I complain, the more you focus on my entries. There are lots of other people around who do not have the long history of animus that appears to be here. Fuzzy subjective rules are being weaponized against someone you have a beef with, and that is wrong. It has gotten to the point where I fear asking a question at the Village Pump because you may unilaterally decide to delete something, or move something that I asked about. No contributor should be put in that situation. Having access to admin tools lets you be the executioner, but you are also allowing yourself to be the judge and jury too. The community should be deciding what is notable, and not notable, not you based on your personal preferences. The !Wikilaw you cite for saying my entry is non-notable reads as follows: "Works created before 1926: Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1926 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable." That seems pretty straightforward to me, so the only reason I can see for saying it is not eligible for Wikisource, is the personal beef between us, hence the proposed interaction ban. When you read that rule, all you see is the word "most", which lets you delete what you personally do not like. --RAN (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)