Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
Shortcut:
WS:AN
This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help.
  • Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
  • This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page.
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 1,639,993
No. of articles = 1,033,123
No. of files = 11,298
No. of edits = 5,219,428


No. of pages in Main = 313,309
No. of pages in Page: = 1,044,646
No. validated in Page: = 189,059
No. proofread in Page: = 277,861
No. not proofread in Page: = 487,712
No. problematic in Page: = 16,539
No. of validated works = 1,576
No. of proofread only works = 782
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 99,994
% transcluded pages in Main = 31.92
Σ pages in Main 


No. of users = 1,817,475
No. of active users = 282
No. of group:autopatrolled = 387
No. in group:sysop = 37
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 24

Checkuser notification[edit]


Log[edit]

Users Results
AngelGa.* and Johnson type accounts There is a spammer (maybe a spambot) sitting within a Sri Lankan internet provider's diverse and dynamic IP ranges. They seem to have taken a liking to our site for spam, and I am slowly getting the range of IP addresses ranges and applying soft blocks for an extended period. There is a bit of pattern with usernames, though some I am globally locking rather than locally blocking, generally as it is easier for me, feel free to locally block/watch/... and let me know if you think that I have missed them. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Spamming has continued as they roam around the ADSL ranks of Sri Lanka Telecom. I have soft blocked 2x /16 for an extended period and will see how that progresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

182.186.0.0/16
range of accounts
Numbers of recent spam accounts have been coming through 182.186.0.0/16 Pakistan Faisalabad Usf Dslam Central. Soft block on the range to prevent account creation. I am guessing that it is real people sitting at a keyboard to spam, rather than spambots, so this may not be as successful as hoped. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
27.153.128.0/17
spambots
Fair bit of spam and lots of spambots from the range 27.153.128.0/17 (.cn origin). No good edits, so I have soft blocked the range (no IP edits, no account creation), which should provide reasonable measures to keep the crud out, yet still keep it open for legitimate accounts from other wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
196.196.0.0/16
spambots
Getting a steady rate of spambots from this range, and it looks to have lots of server space, and zero users for us. I have soft blocked it for a year. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
172.245.0.0/16 Colocrossing — a hosting organisation that repeatedly is rife with spambots. Blocked it, zero good edits from range, and numbers of subparts of the range are globally blocked — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism attacks used to be stored up here at the top of the page so I am reporting it here.

Denial-of-Service type attacks were being waged by repeatedly accessing the same user page, on the order of thousands of times per day. It peaked in early-march with 90,000 hits, and then again in mid-March and early-April at around 40,000 hits per day. ResScholar (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What is it that you are wanting done? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to notify administrators in case we start to see degradation of performance, like delays on the server. They will be apprised that this "service vandalism" may be a possible cause.
Denial-of-service attacks are fairly common to large websites, but I have never seen such an attack at Wikisource. If you or any other administrator knows of anyone I should notify of this attack who works with the server and may be able to take preventative measures, please let me know. ResScholar (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if these play a role in that or not but there is no way these [nearly] non-existant User: pages should be recieving the amount of views that they currently are or recently have... -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I asked around about this, and there's been no sign of a DDoS attack. Actually, the exact response was, "if someone's attempting to do that, they're probably not doing a very good job :)" The current belief is that it's most likely some bot or spider that's screwed up. Given the size of the traffic, it'll throw off the whole-project page view counts a bit. Ops will keep an eye out, and no big worries, but big thanks for noticing and posting about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention. You might want to look into...
* Special:HideBanners - view stats
...too. It is suppose to be cookie activated or something after donating to the wiki-foundation (seems unlikely; if even half of that @ $1 a hit was true, I'd like a new BMW for Christmas btw [3 series is fine]).

I don't know why such a convoluted local solution to hide banners is needed in the first place. Anyway, for a page that doesn't (or shouldn't?) exist, its certainly not a redlink and really busy over time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that every instance of triggering that page is a donation; I think that the way this works, the page is triggered every single time a donor (or maybe anyone who has clicked the button to hide the banner?) visits any page—which, if you look at a hundred pages today, could mean a hundred times. At any rate, the spike in November is expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Okie-dokie remove the ~11 million hits for November and that is still some percentage of ~3 million hits that should not be possible to count in the first place. If somebody donates to the foundation, they should recieve a barnstarn-like banner full of thank yous & such on their User: page or similar - end of story; not hassle everybody else by invoking a cookie-reliant banner that non-donator's wouldn't be able to see to begin with (note the red x for lack of an image file) by design and [most likely] that remaining Users disable from seeing through their preference settings at some point in their wiki-lifetime. I'm begining to think that faux double-nonsense is by design to quietly inflate the bottom line traffic numbers or something. Maybe its been like that for so long nobody bothers to question it never mind be aware of it? (Even funnier: almost 92 million hits to just the top 8 English WikiWhatevers this past year alone). Either way, its out in the open now - what gets done about it now would be by choice & up to the higher-ups I guess.

Back on point. The crazy traffic has pretty much stopped on 3 of the 4 Users mentioned on or about the 16th of this month so Kudos for that. Moving forward @ June, the only "strange" activity that persists [for en.WS] still point to...

... the former being listed before. Can you point someone to these 2 & have them look into it as well? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm folks, as one of the named pair above I'm happy if there is anything I can do (or not do—block me for a period if that helps getting to the bottom of this.) I am curious as to the conclusions and will assist in any way I can. AuFCL (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how the existence of a web cookie "hassles everybody else", and posting a barnstar-like banner is both not going to work for logged-out donors (which is most of them) or for donors who value their privacy.
Fundraising happens year-round, with a focus in November and early December. Probably all of those hits are valid.
AuFCL, one of the hypotheses is that this traffic is driven by a poorly written botnet that is scraping websites for text to add to spammy e-mail messages (to get them past e-mail filters by having "random" text at the bottom of the message). If that's what's going on, then blocking you couldn't have any benefit at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. I followed a link from Wikidata and wound up on this project, only to find that I has been pinged. I have no idea why people (or, more likely, bots) are looking at my non-existent Wikisource user page in large numbers, but it looks like in the past month, my user page here has gotten 23 times more hits than my user page on English Wikipedia, where I am actually active. So... good luck, I guess. I don't think I know anything that can help. Sven Manguard (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There's some (I believe) related details at English Wikipedia's Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request of consideration of possible CU[edit]

Three new editors have turned up and have uploaded and completed Index:Virtual Worlds Theoretical Perspectives and Research Methods.pdf‎. The editing patterns are in blocks with no overlaps. It is possible that these have the same person behind them. Could consideration please be given to doing a CU? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Not obviously related. I would hazard a guess that it was an idea and something wanted for enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Local renaming will no longer be possible from 1 September 2014. For a global rename, go to Meta:Steward requests/Username changes. Hesperian 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Other[edit]

Fatal error on file move[edit]

I was trying to move/rename "File:The Patents Act 1970.pdf" to "File:Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf" and get the following internal error:

[e52a8696] 2014-08-21 01:00:26: Fatal exception of type MWException

The index page was deleted before hand. What am I doing wrong? — Ineuw talk 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I can't seem to "move" it either - different message though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Scratch that - it went through the second try -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks created the Index page already.— Ineuw talk 02:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw some reports, and fixes, in bugzilla about file moving issues at Commons that seemed to be at about the same time. I would hazard a guess that your report would be similar, and has been resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Need input for critical work[edit]

Hi folks,

After months of peeking, poking and prodding with little to show for it, I've finally struck gold.

ITS HERE!.... and damn if I don't have acrobat installed! -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

http://copyright.gov/comp3/
Arrg!.. now the site is down for maintenance. I've uploaded the .PDF however -- File:Compendium3-draft.pdf -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index namespace input-form acting weird[edit]

... or is it just me?

I've noticed a few instances recently where new index page creations no longer automatically populate/select values into certain fields:

  1. Scans field no longer able to differentiate between the various source file types (.pdf, .djvu, .jpg, etc.) and now always seems to default to 'other'.
  2. Cover image field no longer inserts the default page ( '1' ) upon a save where the editor has not manually selected a page to display as the thumbnail. Now, if left blank, no thumbnail appears at all.
  3. Pages field no longer inserts the <pagelist /> tag by default.
  4. Footer field is no longer automatically populated with the <references /> as well.
  5. ... and there might be more fields no longer behaving as they once did but I just can't recall which.

Please verify/amend my observations by trying to build an Index using File:Compendium3-draft.pdf as a testbed. If you happen to create this Index: please delete it after you've finished your testing for the next person (Note: Index page creation is limited to sysops only). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The only filled-in fields, when creating new Index pages, I've been getting for the past few weeks is the Type and Progress fields. I just assumed it was because of the failure of the metadata autoload gadget, so didn't pursue it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. The Footer field hasn't been automatically populated for the last few (?3) years.
Thanks BWC; your point about the footer triggered my memory.

And damn if I don't always forget about the wacky way that form is setup to begin with - it partially depends on the ProofreadPage extension in conjunction with MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config locally (among one or two others also in the mw namespace). I managed to rectify Nos. 2, 3 & 4 without too much thought but damn if I still can't get bullet No.1 to properly detect the source file type automatically.

The thing with the gadget importing [meta]data seems unrelated to these "quirks" but some of that might start working again too (still needs a review and refresh imho). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Debt relief spammer[edit]

112.18.159.88, 183.141.74.133, 177.234.0.94, ‎115.228.48.96 and 115.228.51.252 all dropped the same advertisement for debt relief on separate talk pages in short order. That's unblockable, but others should know it's a pattern. We could stuff the phone number in the spam filter, maybe?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And 115.228.51.49 dropped another one while I was deleting those. This is live, so we need to do something automatic about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I have adapted Special:AbuseFilter/8, where you can just interpose the specific text that you want to block, and then turn the filter on. It is targetted at Talk: ns, edits by IP addresses. If not being used, we can turn it off. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Third party User name moves[edit]

See Special:Contributions/Pundit and Special:Contributions/Ajraddatz

Both of the above Users recently renamed (moved) the same account in succession and as a result have created a double redirect (User:Umafiy →‎ User:FuzzyDice →‎ User:Eurodyne) in the process.

I know the procedure for account "renaming" has recently changed and is handled off-site in a more global fashion so I'm not sure if either of these moves falls under that new scheme or are illegitimate altogether. Can someone more familiar with this renaming aspect look into it and let me know what (if anything) needs deletion/reversion. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Pundit and Ajraddatz are both stewards. Hesperian 06:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Okie-dokie; then its just a run-of-the-mill double redirect created in error. Corrected & thanks. I'll know to check for that bit the next time something like this happens (guess I got use to seeing your tag or Bridgett's all this time). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
From 15th, only stewards and global renamers will be moving accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A request for rights for my public persona[edit]

More frequently, I am using the laptop in public places where I log in using my alternate account User:IneuwPublic. If it's possible, can I have the admin access extended to that account as well? Thank you.

If you're somewhere that you're not happy to log into your base account, then having the admin tools available would also be a security risk. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I prefer the security and can see and agree that most public places (like a coffee house frequented by dozens of uni students, pecking away at their laptops) are a risk. I have a work around, (thought of it as I write this), by saving notes in a sandbox, of items to do which require admin rights. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 20:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
If it is your laptop, and you are using a secure (https) connection, then you should be okay to login with your admin account. It is on shared machines, or wireless and where you can only use standard (http) connection that your security would be lessened. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying it. My connection is https.— Ineuw talk 23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop chasing all that college tail and your connection will remain secure? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
If you only knew how cute they are.Face-smile.svgIneuw talk 00:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
P.S: Don't apologize.— Ineuw talk 00:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Whoever thought DOM might have more than one meaning? AuFCL (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The wind blows on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Wikimedia Commons is like the wind, and I feel like I am peeing against it . . . . and getting wet in the process. It seems that there is no one of any kind of authority on Wikimedia Commons, I got into arguments regarding Google notices, where the documents were marked for deletion. Should I upload these documents to Wikisource before they are deleted? — Ineuw talk 17:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, Commons is Shai-Hulud, a great worm of Arrakis. The machinery is unstoppable. Every once is a while, a Fremen will learn to ride the worm, but that is a very rare thing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
So, we have a Dunes fan. I am a fan of trekkie mathematics and a student studying seven of nine.— Ineuw talk 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to response to that < where's my 20 sided die when I need it :( > -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What's this "new" hang-up over Google disclaimer pages all about? I see dozens of Index:s pages having their status changed to 'File needs fixing' over this. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It began with this file commons:File:Memoirs_of_a_Trait_in_the_Character_of_George_III.djvu and another one like it. I removed the Google claim but some users, not Admins, as far as I know keep adding back the deletion tag. Also see the discussion page. — Ineuw talk 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ahh... now I get it. Thanks.

First off - the reason the deletion tag was added back is because previous copies of the file with the Google disclaimer page in place still exist in the "archives" when you 'upload' a new version of a file over an existing one. It is those previous uploads that are causing some folks angst now. For someone like me who is entering the discussion late, it's hard to follow the logic being applied to say the least. I guess this opens the question 'is it better to just upload the disclaimer-less file with an "improved" yet somewhat similar name as the File: in question rather than trying to replacing it?'. We're already going to have to do some bulk moves & transclusion range adjustments thanks to 1 less page anyway so why not seem to appease the beast by speeding the deletion along re: the old file is now redundant to the new file. Something to think about....

Unfortunately, the point on removal itself was a long time coming and kind of hard to argue with (technically; not practically that is). Personally, I've always tried to make removal of the disclaimer page part of my 'good practices' but that takes the extra time & effort to manually download, modify then upload every instance. What would be sweet is if there was some way (toolLabs? oAuth?) to automate the removal & replacement of the disclaimer page on Commons - preserving the structure(s) already in place here on Wikisource in the process (e.g. bulk moves no longer required). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that you and I (learned from the master and that's being you), not to upload with the Google copyright notice. But, what or how are we going to notify the rest of the editors. These issues are after the the fact. A notice in our help files where IA uploads are mentioned. would help. I only found out about it from the post on the Scriptorium/Help. As of recently, I remove the Google notice and insert a blank djvu page as the 2nd page after the cover. This way, everything is aligned. — Ineuw talk 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record since references are made to users on Commons in the plural. Only one user kept adding back the deletion tag. I have not requested the deletion of any of the files and my intention was to soften the bite of that user. Edaen (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are addressing me User:Ineuw, my discussion was with Stefan4 on Commons. He does have a point that the notices themselves are Google copyright. In any case, I compiled a list of all .djvu files with Google front page notices and posted them on this page. I began removing them, there are only 21 books in all languages. — Ineuw talk 08:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: don't taunt them to delete, as they will, and that is just a PITA. We deal with bullshit arguments as bullshit. We don't want a load of deletionists taking over at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Announcement: Tracking categories for images with attribution problems[edit]

Starting this Tuesday (on Commons) or Thursday (all other wikis), files which do not have machine-parseable author, source, license or description will be automatically added to tracking categories (one category for each). The name of the categories will be determined by the following messages:

Translatewiki link: https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translate&group=ext-commonsmetadata

If you would rather not have these tracking categories on your wiki, you can achieve that by setting the content of the local message to "-" (a single dash character).

Links to the local message pages are available from Special:TrackingCategories.

—Gergo Tisza, Wikitech-ambassadors-l mailing list 6 October 2014

We may wish to talk about whether we want one or multiple categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Should any significance be attached to the fact that none of the above list of messages has any content on Commons as of right this moment? Doesn't look like much preparation is taking place (or is this merely a sop to the disruptive set?) AuFCL (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
These new "messages" [Category: label(s) basically] "should" start to appear tomorrow(them) if not Thursday(us?) when the new 1.25wmf3 update is rolled-out. No point in trying to follow their bread-crumbs until then imo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I purposefully didn't link to them as they didn't exist and we may choose not to populate them. When introduced they will be populated by system default, and will be no different from all other labels and categories in Special:AllMessages. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, without actually "seeing it in action", I don't think this would help us track much - our most common (locally hosted or otherwise) File: type is .DjVu and that means little to no "machine-parseable [metadata]" detection would be possible straight from the source file (like .Pdfs, Tiffs or .Jpgs currently seem to do). If they mean data found or not-found in either the Book or Information templates - that is a completely different story of course; one that seems readily possible to achieve without too much trouble. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
GP will have further information later this week (plan at the moment) and I will share it when I see it. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like "it" is in place as the 4 cats now show up in Special:TrackingCategories & "it" appears to pull info from the Information or Book templates whenever available. At first glance -- seems like some of our '1923-family' of license templates differ than those used on commons and are improperly categorized as a result (but I did not verify that 100%!! -- plus cache is still not reflecting correct number of files, etc. at this time either). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello folks. Pardon if you've already seen/are aware of this but evidently the creation of these categories caused a bit of a stir on Commons: with this discussion. The upshot if you'd prefer not to read there is that the driver for these changes appears to be MediaViewer considerations, which probably means they are of near-to-zero interest on the WikiSources… (I am in all likelihood vastly over-simplifying?)

Oh, and might be worth noting the tidbit that setting a given category name to "-" (presumably in the MediaWiki control reference) disables it. I guess you probably already knew that, too? AuFCL (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Curation is curation. Good practice is good practice. Knowledge and understanding are useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I was trying hard not to outright suggest "turning this stuff off," merely passing on (what was to me at least) new information about the possibility; should it prove useful. However, I still entertain the private belief that adding a tracking category analogous to "My dog does not understand the CSS on this page" would not necessarily add value. 'Nuff said? I'll get back in the box. AuFCL (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent attacks on editors[edit]

Just to bring to your attention a series of attacks that revolve around User:Towering peaks creating biographies in the Author namespace. On 11 October Prosody moved a biography into user space, after which he was attacked by TP and User:Bolsteryoutrego. I think there was an IP floating around in this as well. Yesterday Prosfilaes moved another newly created biography into user space and was attacked by TP and IP 49.151.19.67. EncycloPetey blocked TP for intimidation/harassment and has now been attacked by User:You're dead and IP 199.101.171.244. I have just blocked both of these and await my turn. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Towering peaks/Bolsteryoutrego are directly related (TP has a focus at enWP w:Special:Contributions/Towering_peaks). IP addresses are related. The account You're dead, and the last IP address aren't apparently related. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

A recent message brought me to post this. It has been possibly a year+ since I have noticed anything English Wikisource, come through OTRS. Once every couple of months I get an email about something, but it is usually not in English. Also sometime ago, they changed the format at OTRS, it was just after I was beginning to learn my way around. I get lost there now, so don’t visit spontaneously much anymore.

I am not sure, if there just is not anything impacting us, coming through, or my lack activity there has adversely impacted my notifications. In any case, having another admin active might be a good idea. @billinghurst can possibly answer questions about the process and duties, better than I can. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would much prefer if @Rjd0060, Tiptoety: could respond as they administrate OTRS. Though as some pointers, there are two separate components, 1) Answering questions about Wikisource, and 2) Addressing English language permissions. See m:OTRS and c:Commons:OTRS for fuller information, and hopefully we can get some context relative information provided. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

utilising global spam filters[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: closed as consensus reached for being added to global abuse filters — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
WMF has had available filters that the stewards alone are able to apply 'globally' from meta. Selected wikis and small wikis have been utilising the system for a while, and in the past couple of weeks, the medium wikis have been added to mix. We are able to be added into the configuration to have these filters apply if we so wish (by consensus). The basic scenario is stewards can convert a local meta filter into a filter that can be applied xwiki to configured wikis, all hits are logged locally and centrally. The filters are generally set softer, though after extensive testing and continued spam they can be given a little more oomph. FWIW numbers of the filters that we have locally are replicas of what I have created at meta. AsI have a sort of vested interest that is as hard as I am going to push, though happy to answer questions if my explanation is considered too concise. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
proposed close date: 13 December 2014
  • Support Baring some really good reason not to participate I say we sign up for it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- Sounds like a no-brainer. — George Orwell III (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support -- since the people I trust to understand how this works are already in favor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support even though I haven't been really active lately, I think this is a good idea. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --Kathleen.wright5 (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)