Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
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 = 1,705,335
No. of articles = 762,181
No. of files = 11,459
No. of edits = 5,407,274


No. of pages in Main = 318,531
No. of pages in Page: = 1,093,729
No. validated in Page: = 200,046
No. proofread in Page: = 303,160
No. not proofread in Page: = 494,245
No. problematic in Page: = 17,762
No. of validated works = 1,644
No. of proofread only works = 899
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 107,045
% transcluded pages in Main = 33.61
Σ pages in Main 


No. of users = 2,072,112
No. of active users = 323
No. of group:autopatrolled = 403
No. in group:sysop = 37
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 25

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)
172.56.0.0/16 xwiki lta - related history: w:User:Meters/marciano spammer -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Local renaming will no longer be possible from 1 September 2014. To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Hesperian 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Htonl resignation[edit]

Can someone close the Htonl admin re-confirmation discussion in accordance with Htonl's resignation from the position? Cheers! BD2412 T 19:40, 6 April 2015 (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)
I have requested that my OTRS access be removed. Jeepday (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (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)
Still waiting though the change has been committed, there has been some embargo in place, so I will wait until this coming week to start bashing ears. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, seems like having a "patch" committed is rarely the problem (err... if one can navigate an upload, its 'committed' afaict). Committed is not the same as reviewed & merged however.

The problem is everybody with any accrued status is sooooo far up inside VisualEditor's or Wikidata's development-ass of late that they just don't 'come around' much to sign-off on the minor stuff like this. And a good part of those fixes lingering for weeks on end are merely one line or one word amendments like this one is. It makes no sense to me.

Even people with basic access would be a welcomed addition at this point -- constantly bumping up bits of the backlog seems to be the only sane way to keep us wee wikis on the radar. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Went operational today (7.55 UTC?), though I am still waiting to see something worthy(?) hit the corresponding filter. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just went carefully through what I've dealt with previously and do not any difference from before. Checked the Special Versions page just in case something would reflect the new condition there; nada. I'd give it another day, maybe two? I'm not sure what to look at any rate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The gerrit change is one that includes the wiki to on/true in the configuration. Configs are here, and search for "globalabusefilters". It all looks fine, just watching for a candidate edit and would expect that our local filters and the global filters will both log, and which point I will inactivate what I know are duplicated locally. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

Could this be a sign its up & tracking? Its the first tagging of that type & I don't see any local fingerprints on it so, Hooray!!! thanks for getting this done. I guess my local access and junk will get smaller & smaller over time (can't do/view/review anything to do with Global Filter #100, the one used in that never-before-seen detection, for example).

.... and whats this 'I hear' about being able to remove/delete grandfathered taggings? The ~409 remaining header2 tagged revisions for example have been BOT'd to the main header template months -=if not years=- ago. Continuing to keep that many "around" in spite of being addressing so long ago is not optimal maintenance wise & only seems to make it easier for any newly created ones to "go unnoticed". -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this has been up and running within 24 hours of that update.

I have updated the global filters 100-103 to eradicate false positives like that in the main namespace. Noting that I am working from the meta abuse log at this point. I thought that you could see the global filters that had a hit, is that not the case? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: You don't get an active link to the global filter and the ability to see it? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I don' tink so mon. From....

Details for log entry 52266
23:22, January 23, 2015: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX (Talk | block) triggered global filter 100, 
performing the action "edit" on Barack Obama Weekly Address - 3 October 2013. 
Actions taken: Tag; Filter description: shopping spam (examine)

... the local 'examine' link opens the page like it always did but I can't load anything "global" to test the log report against -- only the local filters (#'s 1 thru ~30 as before) are available. Anything that may or may not exist higher than that (like # 100) aren't accessible nor provide any indication of existing or not, active or not, deleted or not, etc. etc.

Then when I try the external link to gloabal filter 100 on Meta, of course it tells me You may not view details of this filter, because it is hidden from public view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus, I don't understand the commentary about {{header2}}. Can you provide some pointers or extrapolate the commentary. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit revisions tagged by header 2 & hedr2 filters running at the time before we BOT'd every single work (including those tagged in the interim) to Header, making the continued listing of these articles & their affected reivision(s) on Special:Tags a nice bit of archival trivia and not much else.

I had thought I read somewhere that it would be possible / is possible to remove such listings if they were less than 100 of them or maybe 500? ... I can't find it in my cache either. I'll post back w/ a pointer if and when it turns up again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh Special:Tags (I forget about that page), I think that they are a permanent fixture. Like cannot abuse filter counts, filters, etc. Anachronistic, but there you are. Phabricator is about the only place that would promote a change. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There is Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/abusefilter-helper, though that is a bit of overkill for this need. Maybe we need to see if we can get something similar for Meta, and let meta admins work it out.
One less thing to access and/or the tying up of 'ancient loose ends' is not all that important at the moment. If you have the time, look into it and see if its worth pursuing -given the effort that will probably be required of you. I can manage w/o the drama that usually comes with stuff like that anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
@Billinghurst: Revisiting the deletion of change tag revisions mentioned above [like header2] - confirmed this indeed will be possible in the latest TechNews, Future Changes section. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, already noted. GMTA. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
GMTA? So you were also thinking -- specifically -- what type of bit(?) carries the "managechangetags" right which allows the User to add/change/delete change tags from the database? I don't see anything "new" under my list (autopatroller, abuse filter editor, sysop, etc.). I can't seem to find anything about this "new" right documented either; can you please look into that w/ your far more connected contacts than anyone else I can think of around here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Scratch all that in my last just above (though documentation would still be helpful). I found that there is a new column on Special:Tags that handles the promised deletes &/or changes (as long as the tagging scheme is not in effect). I was able to ax the header2/hedr2 revisions in 2 easy steps. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A Charinsert inquiry[edit]

Who can I contact at Mediawiki to expand the Hebrew Charinsert list to include characters with ortography, as it was done with the Greek alphabet? — Ineuw talk 23:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The list is internal to enWS. Which particular characters are you needing? And in which order do you want them (realising that this is RTL orthography)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The characters are not the problem. It's their combination with the applicable orthographic symbols. I've been spending the whole evening researching the issue, and searching for a complete set but I doubt that it exists. In the meanwhile, User:Nahum has helped me to complete the characters at the bottom of this page and I assume he used a Hebrew keyboard. Let me ask him first.— Ineuw talk 08:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you mean the niqqud (vowel points). There are 17 of them and they can all go with most of the 22 consonantal letters (or 27 letter forms). This has the potential to get very big (up to 459 glyphs). I usually create the character(s) with the appropriate niqqud in a word-processor and then copy/paste them across to where needed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! I came to a similar conclusion about the number of possible combinations. In the meantime I found a solution FROM HERE and it was on my desktop. It assembles the character and the niqqud either as a graphic or as hex of any character. — Ineuw talk 17:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: You might ask over at the English Wiktionary how they managed this. They've set up a system that lists the vowel points separately, but allows them the be combined with the consonants while typing. That is, you type a desired vowel, then select the consonant it will accompany. The character inserted is then a combination of both. Most times when there is a character / orthography question, it's already been handled at Wiktionary. They have to deal with this all the time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I resolved the issue with BabelMap which does the same thing - it assembles the characters with any selected vowel point(s). After assembling the words in the software, and using the built in clipboard copy feature, pasted it.

The project is finally complete, and the only document in Hebrew linked to the Hebrew template is a prayer book, which is of no interest to me. My interest is in the language (which I don't want to forget) + the cultural and historical content and context.— Ineuw talk 18:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Packed it in?[edit]

It seems that the upper echelon has deserted us grunts. This means Hesperian, Billinghurst, George Orwell III, and Beeswaxcandle. Is everything OK at the Home office? Or, you all had enough and packed it in?— Ineuw talk 04:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally around every day, been real busy RL and xwiki, leaving less (extended) time for the fun. No one has been on my talk page needing things nor pinging me, spambots dealt with everyday, and filters checked daily or every second. I didn't know we had an echelon. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no echelon, upper, lower or in between. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Nah. It's a tight wedge formation standing firm between the unwashed and that sweet, sweet MediaWiki:Common.css candy. Of which you just happen to be a member. Don't forget that. 110.146.156.245 05:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are referring to administration rights, then you had that right too until you resigned it. If the allocation of rights by the community is an echelon then we have s = 37; [b = 3; c = 3; o = 0];, with the echelon ranking just the size of your mop. I look forward to the community electing more to having mop rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It was very quiet, although I should have checked the user contributions. The reason I am inquiring is because for some of us the Charinsert no longer works and some kind soul was always around to correct such glitches. Realize that I should have files filed a bug report, and will do so. Also, there is always an echelon. :-) — Ineuw talk 05:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm checking in every day too; just too busy to leave traces. Hesperian 14:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
At least, you now know how much you are needed when you don't show up at the office. :-D,— Ineuw talk 16:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] m.Wikisource.org: (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Sorry for writing in English but I thought as administrators you would be interested. Thanks, Nemo 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Index page "checker" tool[edit]

This is/was a tool which appears on the top right of the Index pages. It's an old Toolserver tool that seems to be abandoned by its authors after its move to the new Tool Labs. Essentially, it's an SQL statement querying the MariaDB database which I could do, but I don't know the numeric code for the (Page) namespace, and the five possible states of a page.

  • Without text
  • Problematic
  • Not Proofread
  • Proofread
  • Validated
  • The "checker" [manage maintainers] User:Legokt, User:MZMcBride I emailed them (from Tool Labs page some time ago, but there was no response. Would it be possible to move it to WS and activate it here? Ineuw (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 
Additional info

I managed to extract all the Pages workspace = 104, but validated pages are also marked as proofread. For example, this is a validated page:

Ineuw (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange, as here it appears validated [1]. Can you post the query?--Mpaa (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you might need an extra-step:
SELECT
    page.page_title, categorylinks.cl_to
FROM
    page
        JOIN
    categorylinks ON page.page_id = categorylinks.cl_from
WHERE
    page.page_title = 'Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_29.djvu/258'


# page_title, cl_to
'Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_29.djvu/258', 'Validated'
I think is is possible to set-up on wmflabs as ws-bot. Might require some work and learning. Can you be more specific on what you wold like to achieve?--Mpaa (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 
I see what I did wrong. I forgot that the page status is a category. I will re-write the SQL statement. What I wanted was a list of the pages' status.

Old SQL statement:

USE enwikisource_p;
SELECT page.* FROM page WHERE page.page_title LIKE ('Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_29.djvu%');

New SQL statement:

USE enwikisource_p;
SELECT 
    page.page_title, categorylinks.cl_to
FROM
    page
        JOIN
    categorylinks ON page.page_id = categorylinks.cl_from 
WHERE
    page.page_title LIKE ('Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_29.djvu%')
The second SQL query is fine. I got what I wanted and so can anyone else with the change of title.Ineuw (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
From the above post it is not clear what you are trying to achieve. Getting those two developers' attention is not an issue, it is just whether it is a big enough issue to encourage a change. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to bother them. Just wanted to track specific volumes and the pages' edit status. Essentially the list I get is identical to the checker tool. On the other hand, since the script no longer works, perhaps it should be removed from the Index page? Ineuw (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you just want the webservice restarted? That shouldn't be that difficult. I will prod them to see how we go. Otherwise I will see if Coren will be so good, leave it with me, this should be a simple process. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I had no idea that it was a webservice. If it's not easily correctable, then don't waste your time on it. I did contact one of the developers but there was no response. Also, refreshing my old memory banks (re SQL) is fun. Ineuw (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: That is what the error message said at the top. Thanks to Sunil, the webservice has been restarted (checked), restart service added to the httpd, and I have been add as a tool maintainer (these two not checked) [and not that I code]. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It works!

Oops[edit]

In the middle of an image maintenance run, I got annoyed at the raw image template, and went and made non-trivial alterations... to a very widely used protected template... with the flood flag still on. Oops, sorry. Disclosure of edit: [2] Hesperian 02:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Spanking! — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename page over the redirect[edit]

Author:Donatien Alphonse François should be renamed to Author:Donatien Alphonse François de Sade over the redirect since "Donatien Alphonse François" are merely first/middle names, while "de Sade" is a family name, which is required. --Nonexyst (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done the move, didn't check the remainder, please update as required @Nonexyst:. Thanks for the notification. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I fixed the double redirects, so this redirect may be deleted, since the author is not known by the first name. --Nonexyst (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Redirects are cheap, and has been there for a while, so it is fine to sit. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Revisions deleted from an archive of this page[edit]

Due to a request than came through the stewards, I have deleted some content from this page's archives due to the personal information provided. I also revdel'd the earlier edits to remove those bits from public view too. It is a less than perfect response to the circumstance, though probably one that meets the balance of the person and the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this needed?[edit]

@Billinghurst: Please check out the string of anonIP talkpage additions by Special:Contributions/69.178.195.249 made today.

Is this needed/appropriate/legit? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternately (pretty much the same result set): Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:ISP, and also note authorship of that template.
Redundant for our needs. I have replaced with a welcomeip. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Falkland Islands disputes permeating into Wikisource[edit]

Author:David_Jewett page history

Hello, I apologize for bringing this to your attention but it's spiraling out of control: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Wee Curry Monster is well known in English Wikipedia for getting involved in arguments/edit wars on the topics of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, having been banned on both of them on separate occasions.[10] (I can't link to the Gibraltar incident because of w:WP:OUTING concerns) I fear that these controversies are now being pushed into Wikisource, or at least on the topic of the Falkland Islands, which is the one I'm interested in.

Wee Curry Monster is determined to somehow include the accusations of piracy here too, to damage Jewett's image. He first tried to straightly list pirate as one of his occupations, even if no reliable, secondary source says that (and I stress secondary, because some of his contemporary enemies did called in him "pirate" back in the time). He couldn't do that because he found that other editor agreed with me, so he moved goalposts and brought here the full lede[11] that, conveniently, doesn't talk about the possession ceremony but it does include those comments on alleged piracy.

Template:Author/doc suggest that the description should be short and focused on the author's works. The declaration of possession, conveniently avoided in current description, is what all his published letters are about: without the claim laid on the islands, we wouldn't have his letters in Wikisource. As expected, current author description turns out being even longer that those of Marcel Proust, Edgar Allan Poe or Wolfgang von Goethe.

What are the options here? Should I keep on reverting him? WCM has already been warned but I know him, he won't let go. --Langus-TxT (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Please reach a consensus on the talk page. Hesperian 01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Gents, this wasn't out of control. I wasn't even aware that Langus-TxT had come here making all these allegations against me (is there no requirement on wikisource to inform editors there is a discussion about them?) FWIW Langus is an Argentine editor who has been stalking my edits on en.wikipedia for years. His latest, I'm apparently a British Government agent spreading disinformation on the Internet [12].
He has an obsession with removing any material he considers is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim to the Falklands and for some reason has decided that the fact Jewitt was convicted of piracy in absentia in Portugual is one such fact that is detrimental. He has tried unsuccessfully to remove any mention of it on en.wikipedia. You know what guys, this is your playground, I have no desire to bring conflict here and if your want to side with this guy and say he is right. You know what knock yourselves out. But at least let me play on a level playing field, I can't respond if I don't know I'm being talked about.
I don't think I was being unreasonable to expect text that stood unchallenged for months had some degree of consensus and was genuinely trying to improve coverage. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for not letting you know. Since you edited here on the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, It seemed reasonable to assume that you would have an awareness of discussions initiated on the 13th. You were tagged into the discussion so it should have come up in your notifications.
As for the editorial dispute, I protected it as I found it. I think you should both drop the ad hominem arguments and engage constructively on the talk page.
Hesperian 01:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"You were tagged into the discussion" — Ah, no you weren't. On wikipedia, {{u}} creates a user link that also served to notify. Here, it only underlines. I believe Langus-TxT attempted to tag you in and thus notify you, but failed to do so due to template confusion. I too thought you had been tagged in. I apologise again for the misunderstanding. Hesperian 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're unreasonable for changing text that stood unchallenged for years and then when your changes stand for months, acting like your changes have clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually It hadn't stood for years, the comment I restored was in the first and subsequent versions. And by any standard text that stood unchallenged for months is a consensus, I was quite willing to discuss it. You seem intent on personalising matters, I was not being unreasonable but by imposing a solution and vetoing every attempt to improve the description you were. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not taking part in the primary topic of discussion here, but I do refute the claim that "by any standard text that stood unchallenged for months is a consensus". No, it isn't. We've had vandalism hang around that long sometimes. We are a much smaller project than Wikipedia, with a much smaller group of regular contributors. You might be making a statement based on experiences at Wikipedia, and if so, such a statement is almost never going to be true here. We are not like Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It was very much based on my experience at Wikipedia so thank you for explaining. No that wasn't entirely what I meant, its cited content that one editor seeks to remove as he simply sees it as detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim, not whether it has merit. Those were his words by the way not mine. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What's really frustrating is that you both thought it was okay to bring this argument over here at wikisource. Arguments for any reason are usually unconstructive here at wikisource, and don't happen often. What I would like to propose is a way to turn this argument into a beneficial contribution to wikisource and to your argument. I encourage you to both go out find documents and evidence, scan them, add them to the commons, come back here and digitize them. I've already found some scans that could use some digitizing, over at c:Category:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands and c:Category:David Jewett. We would love to see you both constructively work together to expand your research in the topic of David Jewett by digitizing documents related to him here. Of course, some documents would need to be digitized to [13], but we will gladly accept the translations here. In conclusion, please find more constructive uses of your time spent here, rather than worry about a small descriptive paragraph. Thanks --Rochefoucauld (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

2602:304:af53:3e99:a935:54d:5b3f:9fc (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISRDNStraceRBLshttpblock userblock log) - User was blocked at enWP for 2 years in October 2014 for recurrent long-term vandalism. Today, the user vandalized Scriptorium. The Haz talk 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: global SUL migration underway[edit]

The migration of all unattached accounts to being attached SUL accounts has started, and it is sort of progressing by wiki, so at some point in the next week we will see a string of account renames to ...~enwikisource. It is what it is. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)