Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2012

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Checkuser notification[edit]


Users Results
Vipeak01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL) website promotional spam, main ns, blocked by BWC; identified source (.cn), and did xwiki cleanup, reported to CUs, blocked IP for extended period
Mariapbonner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL) and Entouragepoint user page commercial spam; blocked by BWC; identified source (.ph), and had universally blocked, blocked small IP range for mid term period
Katarighe (talkcontribs) Concerns at another site about the validity of actions and identity. As had voted at our elections without much previous edit history, I felt it necessary to check. Nothing substantive to report. Letting it drop. I can try and answer questions, if possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
TilofeCodasi (talkcontribs) Crosswiki promotional spam using multiple accounts. Accounts locked. —Pathoschild 23:57:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
To note that I haven't been notifying where I found these accounts and spam here since my first notification of the pattern bot. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Vipreklam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL) Turkish orientated spam from 2IPs. Cleansed and reported through CUs to Stewards where short term block is in place on IPs
IP and I ran broad screen checks for pattern bot vandals for these two IP ranges, and block pattern bot accounts that match a number of criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
User:GebudoPehile showed up there, and I have globally locked account and blocked the IP. It was nice that they did it right under my nose. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Checkuser for Poetlister To let the community know that I was running Checkuser in some of the ranges that Poetlister used to haunt. There was one account (Poetlister1) that would pretty clearly seem to be our friend, though no edits locally I blocked it. To also note that two users of good standing also showed in the data and I paid no heed to their data beyond noting usernames. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Spam bot farm pattern NameNameXXX Large number of accounts in the ranges and, though no edits. Locked globally. Checked in other wikis and similarly problematic; information shared more widely. — billinghurst sDrewth
Bot like usernames I have been doing a range of name checks for bot-like bot-like named accounts, and some range checks. Some bots found, otherwise just some people with unexpected account naming. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Spambots of descriptions There is a plethora of xwiki spambots, and other weirdness going broadly WMF servers, and I have been running checks of these, and globally locking them at meta, and often blocking the underlying IP addresses. Pretty well that means that it is not evident that anything has been done to the accounts locally. Happy for people to check with me if there are any concerns, or if you would prefer that I locally block them, then that I can do. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISRDNStraceRBLshttpblock userblock log) (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISRDNStraceRBLshttpblock userblock log)

Still having issues with spambots globally, though lessened. For some reason these two are not working with a global block and accounts were still being created, so I am at least killing them locally as they are an issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Mitakadotekikai070Jeffirs and its /16 range

Did CU for the pattern vandal. results will be added to the details sent to CU-L --Jyothis (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Spambots To note that over the past couple of weeks/while, I have been running numbers of checks for spambots, as there are plenty around in the system. We have had quite a few here with their distinctive patterns that have allowed me to check locally and then more broadly; and v. v. We have been able to pre-emptively avoid spam. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspected spambot[edit]

I've just blocked User:Cecil92419, User:Carter721 & User:Carter946 for spamming about footwear. All three have edited twice at the same time on consecutive days. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Continued removal of a section of Tennessee Code Annotated/2011/Title 63/Chapter 7[edit]

This is being done by a range of IPs in 93.182 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to checkuser here. I have put a block on which will cover x.x.128.0 - x.x.191.255. If they go higher than x.x.192.0 then we will need to change the block to a /17, if they go lower than x.x.128.0 we will need to change the block to /16 and block out the whole 93.182.x.x range. See Special:BlockListbillinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser for investigating a technical problem[edit]

I've just CheckUser'd a user to investigate bug 38333. Please email me at agarrett @ wikimedia dot org if you have any questions. Werdna (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To note that this is a bug that I have raised, which has been converted to a private bug for security reasons. The bug relates to steward tools, and user access, the example data that I provided came from enWS, hence why werdna is testing here. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

CU request for Fj9dmfj85f2[edit]

I think this might be a spambot. Judging by the usernames, it's probably related to Fj9dmfj85d2 on the English Wikipedia. Please consider investigating it. I've requested the same on Wikipedia. Mathonius (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not currently noting about spambot checks undertaken[edit]

I should have made this note earlier, and apologies for that oversight. I am undertaking many pattern spambot checks here these days (against accounts presumed to be generated by the xrumer spam app) that it would be a time-consuming task to note the numbers and names. We are a medium level target for the spambot vandals. It is my belief that our policy requiring notifications was determined in days prior to these spambot type operations being so readily available to circumvent the existing Mediawiki security devices. I am open to alternative means to inform the community of the number of these spambot checks that I am undertaking, if it is seen that this is the community's wish. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

To note that this is not to say that I have stop notifying the community about other CU checks where this is related to what I see as the original intent of keeping the community notified of specific concerns, or of checks that may involve real editors, or clearly specific issues relating to editing matters on wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
What are other communities doing for notification on these checks? Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
For spambots I am not aware of any specific onwiki notification process. Where I operate as a steward on other wikis (where no local), the recording of giving the rights to undertake a CU are logged per rights allocation, similarly such spambot accounts are often locked globally [1] rather than blocked locally.
Notes: I will add that deWP has tight restrictions on undertaking CU, fullstop • Often results of the more problematic accounts are shared among all checkusers, and often can result in a global IP block [2] • Resulting events/actions are not occurring in secret, they are just not specifically identified locally. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Rename request at Meta[edit]

Rename request[edit]

Requesting usurpation for SUL purposes. Target has been notified of this request on user talk page.

Home wiki confirmation link: [3] Regards, Osiris (temp) (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Request noted. If we don't hear from Osiris, usurpation will proceed on 6 April. Hesperian 05:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Bump. ;) Osiris (temp) (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Done. Sorry for not following through earlier. Hesperian 23:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Username usurpation[edit]

I would like to usurp the username Farzaneh on this wiki and add it to my SUL account.

Please see my other usurpation approvals on enwiki, fawiki, and dewiki. Also, confirmation on my new enwiki and fawiki talk pages. Thank you. --FarzanehSarafraz (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Process started.[4] I anticipate finalising it this time next week. Feel free to remind me.... Hesperian 05:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder about this usurpation request. The user does not seem to have responded. --FarzanehSarafraz (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder; done. Hesperian 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation and rename[edit]

Hello. I am m:User:MarcoAurelio writting from my old account. I'd like to request that:

The User:MarcoAurelio here is mine as you can see from the SUL however and if the project needs aditional evidence I have posted this confirmation at Meta-Wiki (my home).

As steward, I have temporary delinked User:Dferg from the SUL-lock (set by me to avoid impersonations) to be able to edit and request this rename myself.

Thanks in advance for your assistance and time. Please do not hesistate to contact me if you have further questions.

Yours very truly, Dferg (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: this edit is the result of a transwiki import from commonswiki. While MarcoAurelio@commons is mine (thus no licensing issues) I have not done any edits here under User:MarcoAurelio. Thanks. --Dferg (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 23:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --MarcoAurelio (talk) 07:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Usurpation and rename[edit]

I ask for to usurp the account Tine, it's my account on Wikivoyage, I need it for SUL. --Tine.wv (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Tine if they have any objection to being usurped. We'll give them a week to respond, then it's yours. Hesperian 04:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. Hesperian 05:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Tine (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Username rename[edit]

I would like to rename from "Katarighe" to "Cyfraw" on this wiki and add it to my global and SUL account. --Katarighe (Talk · Contributions · E-mail) 03:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 05:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to rename Philip Baird Shearer to PBS. I made such a change on Wikipedia and it is confusing having two separate names as I make mistakes when I log in here and then forget to login again on Wikipedia. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 22:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks -- PBS (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]



Editnotice capability[edit]

As per a discussion at WS:S, I have been looking at Commons:Commons:Editnotice and think that the capability offered there would be beneficial on-site. I am still working through the information, but I think that overall there will be benefits. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Spurious account creations x-wiki[edit]

A note to say that the checkusers across the WMF platform are seeing account creations for slavic sounding names, or parts of names, with an XXXX numerical ending. Some are being used for spam, others have been left, as sleepers? While it is hard to know, if you are seeing something that may be suspicious please bring it to the attention of one of the CUs. We have also seen an unusual sock farm set up from a Chinese IP range, though the purpose is hard to determine. As they are being unearthed, I will be doing further blocking. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gadget ShowMessage[edit]

I have added a gadget (generally more useful for admins) that allows the showing the page components of pages. This is useful when we want to see where the text for the page design is located. The script is located at enWP, and is inhaled by ResourceLoader for those who wish to use it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account[edit]

How would I go about receiving another account to be used exclusively on public, or any other computer which is not my personal computer? — Ineuw talk 05:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a login (via special pages on left sidebar), and there is a create account link on the same page, so use that. There is info around about the recommended means to link the two accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikisource:Alternate accounts, the appropriate templates for linking the accounts are listed there. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI MediaWiki:Powersearch-ns[edit]

I amended this page from its default format to have a link. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Hi. Please block Maxeyre (talkcontribs). This is a crosswiki spammer; I already globally locked all accounts, but this is a nonsul one. Thanks. Trijnstel (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice of spamming moved from WS:S[edit]

User:Vipeak01 is spamming Wikisource with advertisements of Chinese made stone crushers. Vertical shaft impact crusher Anyone interested?— Ineuw talk 07:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Blocked user and deleted pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I really didn't know where to post it. — Ineuw talk 07:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dug further through and found a bit of a fetid issue xwiki, so have relayed details. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected[edit]

Would anyone mind fulfilling my edit request here? Thanks in advance Americophile (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikisource protected edit requests[edit]

We haven't had a reasonable means to monitor Category:Wikisource protected edit requests where the output of {{editprotected}} is listed. To assist us to have a means, I have added a part into MediaWiki:Recentchangestext that not only turns the link on and off, but also does a count on the number of pages in the category and projects that int Special:RecentChangesbillinghurst sDrewth

User name weirdness[edit]

Please see multiple new alpha-numeric account contributions. Content "seems" like spam regardless but does not contain any external links as far as I can tell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that User:Asdofindia is unrelated to others, given the span between active dates. The others seem to meet WS:CSD G1. JeepdaySock (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That is the way I see it - just wanted to make sure a checkuser followed up in case this was abuse of multiple-accounts/cross-wiki. etc., before the contribution(s) get deleted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It is a crosswiki issue. Blocked, and replaced the pages with {{blocked user}}; reported to CUs across WMF. Underlying IP addresses (2x) have been managed globally. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New manifestation: double random six-letter names sleeper cells have erupted in a flood of spam. I am compiling a list of these cells in order of spamming so Billinghurst can investigate the underlying IP addresses and report them if necessary:


I have not blocked them yet, I am not sure what the right combination of options should be. ResScholar (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes check.svg Done My guess would be bot accounts, though a different bot. They are all emanating from a Bulgarian IP range, too big to block or easily heck. There was a concentration from so I have blocked that for a week to new account creation, and killed the accounts that look problematic. Watch and see is probably the only answer. To note that I did a quick check of Special:Log but it is pretty noisy checking just for "new user account" and I found nothing new. To note to the community that I did check some other IP ranges within and it just confirmed what we already new. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Fwiw... I've since tweaked abuse filter 15 in the interim and it seems to be detecting this type of spam creation just fine now. Please follow up on them - I left the latest ones alone for your review this round. Not sure what else could improve the filter - still learning the ins and outs here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Update: Filters 15 & 16 were overlapping each other a bit in regards to isolating specific namespaces/user rights - further tweaks should have both working fine as of this post. The 3 bot-like spam accounts under Filter 15 still need a review and action per checkuser I'm guessing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is an API filter that just shows sparse details of new users at our wiki (none of the automatically created)

GOIII if you add a tag to the filter, then we can add the tag specifically with the letag=.... Probably can write a regex to grab XxxxxxXxxxxx [A-Z][a-z]{5}[A-Z][a-z]{5}. Once I have finished the analysis of remaining I may have a look. Found addresses outside that IP range too. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I followed your lede on Filter 15 strictly identifying new external links (most likely spam given the low edit count/not-autoconfirmed-yet status) in User: & User talk: namespaces so I guess a tag simply reading "spam" should do fine there. Not sure what it is/was you were trying to isolate with Filter 16 so I'm not going to touch that for now.
Also, I can't figure out how to stop it from detecting the previously added external links as "new" on subsequent edits executed afterwards. I'll keep tinkering I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't seen more of these, however, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/20 to help us check for creation and action. I am still calling it simple and proof of concept rather than a bigger brighter tool yet. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Filter 15 was never specifically set for catching just "6-by-6" spamming account types (it did catch another one on the 16th however, simply detecting the external link & the non-autoconfirmed staus/young age). Filter 16 is another matter - one where I don't understand where or what it was eventually suppose to wind up going/doing).
I've just about had it' with the freakin' inter-language Bots and Filter 19. I don't have a Bot flag/bit to verify they are indeed ignoring the warning though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New manifestation?[edit]

Just noticed these "new accounts" created roughly over the course of today (there might be more). Seems similar to previous mischief noted above but with a modified basename pattern; figure better to list them than wait for trouble to actually start. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was reported on Wiktionary, too, where it was mentioned that it was going on at the Multilingual WS, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think some of the Hack-Nuts create mischief and then come here to read how effective they have or have may not been. According to what you point out the person/s can then adjust and modify. Why cannot what you all discover been in a secret area where no outsider can see what you think and are doing to prevent them from their destructive personalities? You are giving them feedback here. Respectfully submitted, —William Maury Morris II Talk 04:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 ??? Those who long for administration in secret deserve the community they get - in my expierence; no good can come from it. Transparency and accessibility to everything and anything is the key to sustained credibility & longevity; secrecy only breeds distrust and contempt. Besides, its not like we are dealing with nuclear launch codes here right?
I do commend your wikisource first ala John McCain's country first attitude, however (I wish everybody thought more like that actually). -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

proposals, policy, guidelines, rules[edit]

Regarding any statements about rules for alternate accounts I would like to point to something I only recently read. The text is shown below but the page has a large blue question mark.

[This page is a proposed Wikisource policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as a "policy" or "guideline" ]

A proposal is not a rule. It remains a proposal until it is adopted as a rule. This can be very confusing even now because it is still a "proposal" I think that "gathering of consensus for adoption" has likely had plenty of time to be decided upon as to whether the proposal remains a proposal or is adopted as a rule. I mention this for new people more than anyone here and I believe this is important. I ask that the proposal be adopted as a rule asap. How long does that take? What about people who have two accounts and that proposal, or even as a rule, takes place after they arrive? How many rules are there on wikisource (WS) and where are all of them? Does one have to hunt for them all and learn them all before trying to edit and perhaps adding a 2nd account? People do not come to wikisource to read and remember all of the rules and the rules and others such as proposals seem to be scattered as it is. How does one know when a rule has changed i.e. sock puppets? Is there a remedy for any or all of this? The "blue question mark" of it all should be removed from all of these situations should it not? —William Maury Morris II Talk 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything operates by community consensus, the majority of vocal members of the community have come here from other wiki's where the expectations we are discussing are "policy" and they have found having them as policy leads scope creep, and often to misuse. Two of them are currently under discussion to elevate them from proposed at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Alternate_accounts & Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Portal. I agree completely that we as a community sometimes fail provide all the required direction and expectations that a virgin contributor may need, the task is more overwhelming then you may at first think. We try to include everything that the new contributor needs to get started on {{welcome}} without seeming to be over whelming, would it be helpful if there was a link to Wikisource:Policies and guidelines on Help:Contents, which is at the top of the {{welcome}}? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I really do not know if that would help or not, JeepdaySock. The welcome page is excellent and a new person, depending upon a person's personality, may welcome more or welcome less. We're all different in what we like. Some people love to read all of the rules they can find and lurk about for a period of time before ever posting anything. Other people are the opposite. I don't know how much age difference makes. The areas that I have seen very recently are, in my opinion, very good. I will state that I was here working when the present version of welcome was placed on my page and therefore I paid little attention to it. It came behind me and I ignored it. I had my B.O. account since 2006 and added this account recently. I thought I understood all I needed. There were to be no "sock puppets" -- and I did not use any sock puppet. I wanted to be anonymous at first. The statements I made above refer only to what I have asked while thinking of new people. Rules change, that's simple enough to know. Recently billinghurst was explaining to someone in a thread of conversation that the method of contributing old books while outdated now (I think) was okay when that area was underway. I placed several volumes in that area. But now it has changed to where books (I think) have to be downloaded and placed into those small page squares to edit (what is that called?) Personally, I have no idea how many community people exist. I did not know how this area worked or that it even existed. Obviously changes have to exist, areas need to be refined, we must advance with technological advances, and rules need to be refined. I do know that when I see "policy" as cited above with a large blue question mark and those statements I cited, I would not consider it a rule. I understand we function as community consensus because only that makes sense. I think that when a person should, or can, come to this area for a mistake that there should also be an a statement to that effect sent to the person. I came here only because you left a link but I did not know I could state anything. In a court one cannot just stand up and speak which is what I thought this area was like -- a court. All in all I learned that wikisource is a wonderful place and very unlike some other wiki areas where administrators dominate and some editors are the typical "yes" people that follow along seeming to be like multiple sock puppets.

I just remembered something, a statements somewhere reads, "keep your statements short" so I had best bow out now. I hope that everyone understands I presently have two accounts, this and my BO that I have used since 2006 when I felt safer hiding my identity like most or all others here. I know all of this can be confusing but the "community" did well with my situation of mistakes. There was no instant beheading for mistakes. Wikisource did very well and one can still contribute which wikisource exists for. There are good people here and that is why people like this area so much aside from working on books. It would be interesting to know which editors might just leave and why because I see no reasons from what I have experienced here. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

JeepdaySock, you cite two areas above. I went there and read and below I will place comments about those same two places.

(1.) " I would like to propose that Wikisource:Alternate accounts be formally recognized as a policy or guideline (one or the other). It has been in draft form since 2009."

(2.)" I would like to propose that Wikisource:Portal be formally recognized as a policy or guideline (one or the other). It has been in draft form since 2006 with a significant upgrade in Feb 2011 to reflect current expectations."

Number 1 unchanged since 2009.

Number 2 goes back to 2006 until your recent statement of 2011.

What do you think about the length of those dates of areas undecided? What would think of a new person reading them and seeing that they are undecided. I have no concerns about number (2) but I have conversed with you on number (1) going back as far as 2009. Why do final decisions, one way or another, on these take so long and especially with number (1)? Does the community just give up on decision making or is it like Washington DC, or is it just concerned about other areas, or is it overwhelmed by so many people? Is not this area, according to its name, "Administrator's noticeboard", for Administrators only? Scriptorium looks like the best place for these questions to me but yet you stated I could write here. Are all of the others who posted Administrators? I ask these questions because I do not understand these situations and presently, for me, the most important one is #1 for new and established editors on wikisource, WS, aka, and any other way people openly indicate the same place that could confuse a new user. Let us all remember our life back in 2006 and 2009 and the changes that have happened in our life. It is a long period of time is it not? For me it seems like plenty of time to decide upon #1 or #2. I do not make any of these statements or questions with any malice aforethought but rather out of a personal curiosity -- and concerns for new people coming to wikisource. Perhaps, for reasons unknown to me, the statements and questions I have presented make little or no difference regarding decision making, perhaps those two areas you have pointed out to me are not important enough to discuss or decide upon by the community -- I honestly do not know -- I just wonder. But it is my nature to wonder about things I encounter and to speak out if I have a question. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Things don't always move quickly here, the move to create the sock policy occurred in Dec 2009 Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-01#Alternate_Account when I created my sock account, I suggested in Dec 2010 to make it official policy Wikisource:Alternate accounts but, I had terribly bad timing, as a serious and very distasteful discussion had started hours before (I was not aware when I made Dec 2010 proposal), general consensus being to not address it during the other ongoing issue. Then your issue was brought up, which again brought up the subject, so once again it is proposed Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Alternate_accounts looks to have consensus to be a guideline, I would think in few weeks someone (not me) will close it and make the change. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 hacked email servers acting as proxies[edit]

  1. (talkcontribs)
  2. (talkcontribs)

I've blocked two "hacked mail severs acting as proxies", per comment by Wikinews Checkuser (and former Steward), Cspurrier. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External link watch at meta:[edit]

m:User:COIBot has a means to watch for (dodgy) external links across the WMF wikis, and with the help of Beestra, I have configured the link watch for better reporting for English Wikisource. While we are excellent in our patrolling, this gives us some backup to see what external links are being added.

The reports are written in hieroglyphics (well, sort of), and users are able to close reports either by simply in closing or having manually reverting the links. Note that reports are at the time of output, not regenerated until the next link addition event, so if you want a current situation, click the [?] link in the Link Summary report. If you may be looking to do this regularly, then it helps to utilise the SBHandler gadget at meta. No expectation of anything to be done, just keeping people informed. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Crosswiki there has been general issues in the IP range to the point that the stewards are considering blocking it if the collateral damage can be managed. On that range we have had nothing but vandalism recently, and we can suppose numerous reasons. Anyway, I have implemented a mid-term block on the range until things are settled. At its expiry if the vandalism returns we can revisit, or other admins can look to manage this too. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Username change IIVeaa -> 1Veertje[edit]

Hi, can anyone change my username to 1Veertje? I prefer having the same username as on flickr/twitter. tnx --IIVeaa (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 05:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion[edit]

I've just indefed new user Efgen for block evasion. Editing behaviour is the same as Byaing whom I blocked yesterday for a short term for disruptive editing on Bible (World English)/Matthew. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And there were two others at the IP. These accounts have been locked down. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkuser request[edit]

In the last 36 hours 3 apparently separate new users have created and edited Author:Charles A. Ward. All three have added similar materials copy&pasted from Amazon or from Wikipedia. Are they all the same person. User:TWreck, User:Stevet12340 & User:JohnS. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It would seem highly likely that they are the same person, though one cannot be definitive; the first two share the same IP, the third is different, though the same internet provider. I didn't do range checks or blocks, so if you need larger preventative measures to manage this then please let me know, and I will see what can be done. If the standard things fail in the immediate, maybe salt the author page to prevent IP and non-confirmed accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Large number of texts, help with adding to Wikisource[edit]

Hello, I am the administrator of the Icelandic Saga Database, which contains a large number of public domain texts and translations. I would like assistance in adding all these texts to Wikisource, since i am new here and not familiar with all the rules. I already have a database of data, could I automate the process of adding these texts to Wikisource? -- Bjorn unsigned comment by palthrow (talk) .

Gday Bjorn. We can only speak for English Wikisource, and from a quick look at your site, you have multiple languages in play, though obviously some translations are a good chance to be in English. As we have wikis for each language, this will also mean pointing you to da:, is: and if we don't have a specific language wiki then oldwikisource: as that covers those without. Generally our concerns is not about the method of addition, but more to addition in line with style guide. I would have thought that the users John Vandenberg (talkcontribs) and Pathoschild (talkcontribs) would have the most skills in that arena, though they are both a little harder to catch. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There are some 22 English texts, all of them in the public domain, translations from the 19th century, suitable for inclusion here. The basic data backend for these are XML with layout and metadata, which is run through filters to generate HTML, plain text, EPub etc. I could write another filter to output Wikicode. -- Bjorn unsigned comment by palthrow (talk) .

Intervention needed on close to 3RR[edit]

Hi, could someone (other than me) please have a look at The Guide for the Perplexed (Friedlander)/Part I‎? I've already reverted twice and attempted to explain. It's a moving IP involved, so I'm not sure that my messages are getting through. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

fwiw... it seems you have been clear enough to me (but maybe I'm in no position to comment in the first place when it comes to "messaging")
The one thing that I'm not so clear about is why a match and split was run when it seems the same "person" (i.e. similar range of IP contributors) has been and still was "fixing" the various mainspace parts since mid-2011 or so? I fully agree with the idea working this in the Page: namespace with the standard proof-reading practice makes much more sense in the end but I don't see why it was so timely to import the content sooner rather than later when the so-called corrections where actually "done" (or static?) in the mainspace first. Maybe I'm missing pieces in this work's overall history? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
It was the header2 that drew my attention to the work. Then I saw the note "The text here is an OCR digital version of the printed edition. It has not been proofread, and is riddled with errors. Wikisource contributors are urged to correct it based upon the printed version." I don't have the printed version, but Misarxist had uploaded the djvu and marked it for M&S. So I did. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, imho, if there is/was no connection between Misarxist, the IP contributor(s) & the mainspace originated work, I don't see how we can, for lack of a better term, 'impose our will' (as correct as it may be policy wise) in this particular case. Frankly, there are just too many open ends on this one to be "right" about much - the Index page says 1904 while the File: info says 1910; the OCR that came with the DjVu was of a sufficient quality to ignore the temptation of Match & Split (and would have locked in the correct edition at the same time whatever it really is) completely; plus we took matters on faith rather than checking with the uploader (who seems to like this work alot btw.) and anybody else who regularly showed up in the various edit histories.
I really don't know what to do next in light of all the above. I say we wait for some additional input from other folks for starters. Somebody will see this sooner or later (ha). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look and also and am similarly unsure. Can the work be split into two versions? As I understand it different published versions and different approaches are being used by different contributors on a work with the same name. Jeepday (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
They're both 1904 (see Page:Guideforperplexed.djvu/8). Having been burnt once with matching the wrong editions, I'm very careful to check. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
That answers one question (sorry for not checking page-by-page). The other points remain - if Misarxist and the IP contributor(s) are/were not one in the same, then there is not much we can do about all this at this stage. I guess the only way to "force" compliance now is to finish PR & validating the Page: namespace work (or just Part 1?) in spite of the redundant work currently taking place separately in the main namespace then switch to <pages> afterwards. It is tough to expect someone to switch approaches though what you tried is what is hoped for. Can we risk losing a multi-month contibutor for good for the sake of just one section of a larger work that wasn't doing much in the other namespace until 10 days ago? -- that is the call I think you have to make ultimately. I'll support which ever route you decide to take regardless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought that they were the same. If we are having problems then lightly protect the pages and point them to somewhere to get their attention. If there are different versions, then that predominates THOUGH only after we have tried to get an agreement on the better version and even know the provenance of the existing version. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Spamming own talk page?[edit]

After I deleted a blatant advertisement in mainspace, User:Gayloo reposted the content at his own talk page. I assume there is some SEO benefit to having a site mentioned at WS, even on a user talk page. On the other hand, this doesn't seem to be a trend. Do we care about this? --Eliyak T·C 18:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't like to let folks promote external sites here unless a justification can be made that the content is somehow related to our basic operation (i.e. links to author info, scans, etc.). This was clearly a violation of the policy and has been deleted again. If they persist in reposting the advert, a block may be appropriate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)s

Time to archive?[edit]

Seems like the March archiving of Scriptorium never took place. Is ok to do this manually now? ...or should I just wait for the end of this month ? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Prod Sanbeg? It would be very useful if we could find someone to assist us to have a bot to archive to more widely and automatically. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds about right. I'd volunteer if somebody set the bot up for me. At the same time, a 30 day archive cycle for something like Scriptorium doesn't always make sense. A lot of the sections there are one shot asked & answered exchanges while other portions need more than 30 days to come to fruition.
Anyway, I'll drop Sanbeg a note I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It should be 30 days after the last edit, so it won't archive until after it has come to fruition. Jeepday (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Consideration of flood flag as part of admin tool kit[edit]

Anyone sifting through recent changes today has probably been confronted by a raft of authority control additions by me. And I know that we have previously had some commentary around some of Hesperian's disambiguation work when it has filled RC. I have found that Meta has implemented the use of the flood flag to which administrators are able to allocate that bit, similar to applying autopatrol and abuse editor. It is akin to allocating a bot-like flag that could be used for temporary periods to minimise the impact on recent changes. I would think that we could consider this addition to our tool kit, though something that we would see being used quite sparingly, and an amount of guidance. Before taking the proposal to the full community, I thought that it was worth seeking other opinion about such a proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Definitely. It was exactly what George and I needed.[5] Hesperian 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Hes. It sounds like a reasonable solution to the "grey area" in between a formal bot run & a bulk run by an individual. I support moving forward on making this a part of our toolkit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I also support this move. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
To note that this discussion was taken to Wikisource:Scriptorium, there was little comment beyond further support, upon which a bugzilla request was raised. This has now progressed to modification to settings, and will be checked and implemented at a point of time (unknown). The request I lodged was 1) the addition of a flood tag to our repertoire of rights; 2) addition and removal of right by a 'crat to any user; 3) self-addition and self-removal of right to an administrator. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Damn. 1.20/wmf4 starts deploying on the 28th - it would be nice to get the needed code-review verified before then in order for this to be part of that roll out. Any ideas on who to kick on this in the next day or two? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Has been implemented, and self-administration for admin account works, and does not allow my addition to others (also correct). Would one of the 'crats please check that they can assign to others. Then we will need to confirm at bugzilla:36863billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for leaning into this. I'm seeing the same self-administration at the sysop level and not able to alter other User's rights as well. Hope the 'crat portion checks out as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Confirming: the user rights management interface indicates that this 'crat can add the "bot user" flag to other accounts, including non-admin accounts. If you want a full test involving adding, testing and removal, find me a non-admin guinea-pig account. Hesperian 00:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is your guinea-pig JeepdaySock (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Test edit. Didn't check that bit. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hides edit, marks as bot. Success. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
And I have successfully added and then removed the flood flag from JeepdaySock. Hesperian 11:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting autopatrolled userright[edit]

I've been working on Freud's The Interpretation of Dreams, which I tend to do in big chunks. I clicked on Recent Changes and noticed that my edits were making up a pretty large chunk of the unpatrolled edits. You can check out my work on Interpretation of Dreams if you need reassurance that I'm making good contributions. I'm also an admin over at en.wp, if that helps. Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 02:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Logon help needed., please[edit]

My name is Tony Woolrich (AKA Apwoolrich). I did quite a bit of work on Wikisource 2005-6, but the work lapsed because I was involved in non-Wiki activities.

I have been working in recent months on a project on WP, and want to place some reference texts on WS. When I try to logon to my user space, I can't because I don't remember the password, and WS can't send it to me because I have changed by email address, and my old one has lapsed. Its suggested I create a new user name, which I don't wish to do. I am sure there is a work around for this situation, but I can't find it. I have an idea there was talk about making a common logion for all Wikis. Any advice, please? Thanks 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

SUL for "Apwoolrich"
Info on common login w:Wikipedia:Unified login
Not sure it can be recovered with the hurdles you mention, but this is a good place to ask.
JeepdaySock (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There have been situations in the past where a developer issued a new password to a person who was able to prove themselves the rightful owner of the account. However I'm not sure if this has ever occurred except when account had a User committed identity. Hesperian 00:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The only hope for this would be via a bugzilla: request and some means of getting the attention of one of the developers. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I'm here performing a quick check on the account by way of IRC report. Cheers. (if you want to leave a note, please do it on my Meta talk page) Bennylin (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

/* Request by wmm */[edit]

Would some kind soul with the know-how skills please pull this book into Wikisource so that I can edit the text? With all due respect, —William Maury Morris II Talk 13:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone with the ambition enough to make and guard their own Wikisource portal should at least know the basics. As it is by your request you're imitating someone else who tried the temper of Wikisource's most patient administrator, Billinghurst. ResScholar (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not know who you refer to nor that situation. I only made a request and I used my manners. I did not ask for nor do I need any of your chastisement. Aside from that I have the book on Wikisource. I meant no harm in asking a request and Billinghurst isn't shy if he wanted to say something like you have to me but he is a kinder person. I will ask no more favors from anyone in this area where we all are supposed to be allowed to ask questions, ill-mannered learned person aka "scholar". Too, I have made no "portal". That was done by AdamBMorgan, "scholar". Someone should get their basic facts correct before they seek to correct others or create problems for anyone, "scholar". 'Nuff said. —William Maury Morris II Talk 16:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Putting a book on Wikisource with page scans is not what I would call a basic skill, it is intermediate at best. The directions have room for improvement as well. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I think when you are a user and have never placed a book on Wikisource from it seems to be advanced. When one knows something then it is simple. I managed to get the file from onto WikiCommons and created an area for that book on WS. Up until then believed I knew what I was doing from working under AdamBMorgan's instructions (a wonderful administrator and always polite!) in the past. Then on Wikisource I learned that I did not know all that was needed. I thought I had it but learned there was something wrong somewhere. There was no place to rename File to Index and pull the pages in which I have learned from Adam. I apologize to ResScholar for my reply but I dislike someone trying to put me down. Who likes someone trying to put them down? Arguments are started that way. Everyone knows things others do not--academic and otherwise. The farmer feeds the aristocrat and the aristocrat governs by laws. Some of us know some of each of those occupations as did Thomas Jefferson. It is all a learning experience. The instructions are not good in my opinion and what I do know I learned from a very mannerable administrator. If nothing else we all should use our manners here on WS as co-workers, or as Billinghurst has stated, "family". Either help one another or let it go. That sort of thing can chase new people away if they lurk to learn and read such things in this area of our beloved Wikisource. We all love it here or we would not be here. Let us always try to use good manners and welcome and retain workers on WS. WP had workers leaving you may know. "History repeats itself" Kind regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 12:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
"Backtracking", as stated above I thought that I knew all involved in placing a book on WS. I also stated that I thought the instructions are not good and now I do not know if they are or are not but it appears that they are good. My mistake was that I believed I knew all I needed so I did not use those instructions that several smart people have provided for us. I have looked back and the 1st page means nothing to me because I understand it. What I did not notice is that what I wanted was that one small link at the bottom of the page which completes a page that I did need. I have read that and it looks correct and easy enough to me. The instructions are good in my opinion and I thank those who created those pages of instructions. "Live and learn". Everyone have a wonderful day, afterall, this is Friday wink Sincerely, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 13:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I will do it, though I would like for you to have a first attempt at completing the {{book}} template with the requisite data. I will paste that template to User:William Maury Morris II/sandbox so please complete what you can. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Re the commentary, IMNSHO there is no point in grading someone or a task if they don't particularly feel confident. We all evolve our learning at different rates, so in this event we go slower … <shrug> … we are not at an origin, and the works get transcribed. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Billinghurst, I had already asked another administrator to place the book on Wikisource. That book is presently on Wikisource and I know how to place requisite data in place. I am familiar with doing that through several volumes where I also pulled the images onto wikisource. I never would have asked for help here if I had not run into a problem. I thank you for your offer though. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

  • How many pages of a book have to be validated before a person can place the book in the New Text area? Would some kind souls who have the time please check this book for validations? I cannot validate my own works. I thank anyone beforehand who is willing to help and everyone who even considers helping. Maury, —William Maury Morris II Talk 04:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Here is the book- [[6]]
    For new texts, we generally are looking at the proofread status, not the validated status. Within that, I have put distinct parts of works up, eg. a lecture from a book of lectures and used the title parameter to enable a cloaking of the name. Where it is smaller than a full work, then my check is the relevance to our scope, so occasionally I have even linked to a biography entry from a biographical dictionary, or an obit from the newspaper to partner a work of a lesser known author. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    I had thought it was imperative to validate all pages of a book. Behold! Here is an example from you as to the constant learning adventures on WikiSource. Learning is an adventure — although a task when the answer is unknown. Things seem so much easier after a concise explanation and thus I thank you for your quick and good reply. In reference to your statement about links I now ask you how imperative are links when, or after, editing a book? Sometimes I link names and places to WP but not that often. Digipoke is very good [credit where credit is due] at zipping around doing that and fairly often with what I have edited. I do create and link to author pages that I create. But linking a work could be endless. Again, I thank you once again, as I have so often over the years due to your excellent and fast help. Sir, in comparison I sometimes feel as though I belong to a "Know-Nothing" Party until someone like you assists. Most respectfully as always, —William Maury Morris II Talk 06:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    There's no right or wrong answer to how much to link. It depends on what the target audience is of both the original work and of our representation. For example, in Tracts for the Times I'm linking the Bible references as I assume that the reader won't have their Bible open beside them while they read. But in Index:A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges.djvu, which is a Bible commentary, I'm not linking the references because the work will be used with an open Bible. In other examples, when I'm working on a Stratemeyer Syndicate book I'll link to Wiktionary for words that are now little-known because the audience will be younger readers, but I don't do the same in Charles Dickens as the target audience is adults. In scholarly or scientific works such as The Mediaeval Mind or Manual of the New Zealand Flora there is more linking happening because that is how academics will use the works. Lastly, in A Dictionary of Music and Musicians there is a lot of linking between entries and to the DNB00, which enhances the usefulness of a Dictionary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Time to retire or restructure Wikisource:Protection requests[edit]

This page in its current form is redundant as we pretty well do not protect general works as our current practice. I would suggest that we look to either redirect requests for protection to this this page, and provide a special section, or rewrite the existing page that talks about emergencies only. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I concur. This area is not set up to function as the speedy deletion requests currently is (auto-cat with watch-list dashboard notification when requests exist) and requires constant monitoring of the specific page to become aware of any new protection requests. Since the Protection template also seems to have been deprecated at some point, there is no easy way to mimic the speedy deletion request function without restoring it.

Personally, & administratively, I lean towards directing requests to a special section on this page since such requests have become so infrequent of late but I'm open to setting up the other way if somebody else really wants to. I would also add that the requests for protection have been few and far in between thanks to the diligence of our regular contributors rather than some recent deviation from general practice or established policy (outdated or otherwise). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added that section above, and propose to forward the listed page to the section above. Presumably next we look to update Wikisource:Protection policybillinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Template vandalism reoccurring at other wikis[edit]

Earlier this year, there was a person(s) vandalising templates that made them difficult to navigate and to revert once inside the template. To note that some wikis have are seeing it again. As a hint for those who didn't have experience last time, you either need to rollback from the history, or recover an earlier post in the history. Hopefully we will not be found before the vandal again gets bored. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on making all templates restricted to established user? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No meaningful content on Tak pages[edit]

Hi. Is there a way to check when Russian sentences are added to talk pages? I have seen many of this kind during patrolling. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Old IP blocks removed[edit]

A note to say that I have been through and done clean up on old IP blocks, and removed many, and transferred a couple to global where they are holisitic issues. Some I have shortened to be approximately one year blocks. Generally stewards recommend that IP addresses are blocked for a maximum of a year. There are some ancient IP blocks on the server, and I will prod Pathoschild about them as they are his. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Pathoschild says that they can be removed, and I have started to do so. I forgot to add the flood flag, so that it didn't clog Recent Changes. If someone else wants to lend a hand they can start at here, though I would recommend going to Special:UserRights and becoming a temporary admin bot would be worthwhile. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Page:American Stud Book Volume XIII (1924).djvu/1[edit]

Is anyone able to delete Page:American Stud Book Volume XIII (1924).djvu/1? The corresponding index was nothing but the cover page, and I have deleted it as a particularly pointless excerpt. My attempts to delete this page keep resulting in a "Fatal exception of type MWException". Hesperian 05:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Same problem seen here even after a quick edit just to refresh the content/cache/etc.
I wound up moving it to the main namespace with a shorter title and it deleted fine. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Request modification to Mpaa Vector.js[edit]

Can someone please edit User:Mpaa/vector.js toolbar buttons {{Psf}} or {{Pfs}} and change them to {{Pfos}} which is the new redirect shortcut to {{PSMFragmentsOfScience}}. There were two redirects to one template and I corrected the Page:ns links and marked the old redirects for deletion but his toolbar is still linked and I don't think he'll be back for a few more weeks. Thank you. — Ineuw talk 15:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 00:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. — Ineuw talk 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as...[edit]

an unregistered (global-?)bot account? See User:WikitanvirBot.

I went to edit it in order to update the Bot template's paramaters and got the message I'd be creating a previously unregistered account. Side menu shows main namespace options only. Weird. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

At this stage I guess it is just a page that has been created in user space for an account that hasn't been created here yet. Hesperian 07:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Soft redirects[edit]

Anybody know what's up with TalBot? Looks like it hasn't finished off any of the soft-redirect maint. for anything created in 2012. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Know nothing; have you pinged GZ? — billinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Left a note but don't expect much - I dont see any cross-wiki activity for GZ since ~March except for one contribution over on Wikipedia since. I only mention it because the Orphaned pages list is slowly becoming overtaken by dated-soft-redirects (nearing 600 pages as of today). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Done up to June included.--Mpaa (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should be looking for a migration or permanently shared assignation of the task. It seems that GZ has been enticed by RL. To note that there is documentation about the permanent task, and if this is going to be a permanent thing, then maybe we should be looking to allocate admin rights to the bot, especially may be the case when we have the bot doing moves anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd support the assignment and/or sharing of this or any other scheduled maintenance task - along with giving those bots admin rights. I draw the the line at the rationale that on-the-fly maintenance tasks should be bot driven only. It should be possible for any andmin to make bulk moves or deletes without the need for scripting. Just like there are ways to nuke recent additions from vandalistic users from the SpecialPages menus, so too should there be ways to do bulk moves and deletes. Somebody, somewhere should be able to make these functions a pre-formed appelet that takes simple inputs of ranges to accomplish these tasks that come up almost daily now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Protecting priority files at Commons[edit]

Stumbled across Commons:Commons:Auto-protected files which enables enWS to identify and list files that we require to be protected against modification. Apart from our global image, there is not a lot that I can immediately think that I wish to protect, or that we have had abused, however, it is a better option that hope. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons deletions of WS files[edit]

I mentioned somewhere (now forgotten) that we have had a little issue with Commons files being deleted, including .djvu files, and it being a right PITA. In consultation with one of the admins at Commons, we think that the proper means to handle those files is for them to be marked as per the instructions at Commons:User:Commons fair use upload bot and they will be transferred to us. It would be good if others could familiarise the process, and if unaware admins delete files that should be kept (usually identified through Special:Contributions/CommonsDelinker that we can rescue and recover the files to be transferred. Also if anyone sees some of our works there put up for deletion, it is always best to try have them kept at Commons, however, where that cannot be done, an intervention strategy works so much better. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

George Orwell III (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • here is an example of a file being deleted on Commons but OK? if it was hosted (Index, Files) on en.WS.
    recovered this work at Commons and marked it for transfer to enWS then deletion.
  • another one - A UK Gov't license problem it seems
    if it fails that test at Commons, then it probably fails here. What is wanted to progress? — billinghurst sDrewth 09:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
    If that one fails based on yet-to-be-resolved &#^$!@ UK Open Government License then we will have a dozen more recent indexes dealing with whatever SC4 is also dropping out in the coming weeks & days. Makes no difference to me as I will just as easily delete the orphaned pages instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominating to get OTRS feed[edit]

The following discussion is closed: done

At oldwikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium‎#‎OTRS queue I have noted that I am proposing to put my name forward to participate. Any comments there would be preferable — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, excellent candidate. Might I add a suggestion, that it would probably be a good idea to also add a note about this ongoing discussion, at the page: m:OTRS/volunteering. Cheers and good luck! -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
    Reversing that process, talking to our community first. There may be other candidates, and better we have our discussion first. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    Oh of course! I only meant to suggest to leave a notice there about this discussion here. -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If there wasn't enough to do already without the addition of the newbie author & his or her 101 cat calls & other assorted profanities of the pubs of Upper & Lower Uncton. No thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    I am more concerned about the OTRS permissions that may be there, there have been a number of works where we have asked for permissions and there has been nothing. We simply don't know what is there, and the queue is there already, it is not a new thing. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    I know of 2 - is that right?.... and worth it? -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    I Don’t understand GO3’s rational for oppose. George is too busy so, billinghurst should not have a tool to assist us in problem solving OTRS issues? JeepdaySock (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    If anything I'm not as busy as Billinghurst is but that is not my point. My point is I'd rather not host works that haven't been traditionally published and I fear all this will do is open the door to the "wingnut brigade" more so than any useful contributor. I could be wrong. Hopefully that will put the parameters for acceptable works into discussion before taking on the task for a change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    If you want to propose a change in policy, the forum is available, but we have no chance of getting modern works that have been traditionally published if we don't have OTRS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    Started a discussion at Wikisource_talk:What_Wikisource_includes#Traditionally_published. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support For billinghurst to have OTRS access on behalf of en.WS. If possible we might throw another name or two in for the access. Any of our long term admins or higher level mop holders would/should be good candidates. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support we need to clear out OTRS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Great candidate for the job. EVula // talk // // 06:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done to note that the queue is empty. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 02:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi. Please consider blocking this user. The user is spamming cross-wiki, and the account is not a SUL-account so I can't place a global lock. -- Tegel (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-protected request[edit]

Please edit the protected page Template:PotM/base placing the <noinclude> tag immediately after the end of the table. Thanks for helping.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Whitespace removed. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Special:Book (Collections) has been updated[edit]

The closure of bugzilla:29023 highlighted that Special:Book (mw:Extension:Collections) has been updated and it now has an EPUB export type, and I also noticed some other formats that are new. Also the previous problem relating to poor transclusion appears to have been fixed. Seems that we should be looking to review these components and look to how we configure our site.

On another note, Tpt (talkcontribs) has migrated his gadget version of EPUB creation from Toolserver to WMFlabs, and I have updated the gadget accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

TimedMediaHandler coming this week[edit]

w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Technology_report#TimedMediaHandler coming this week is something that we should watch. At an earlier point in time there was the addition of a special gadget for us at the request of Theornamentalist. We will need to do some tidying up around the gadget if TMH is now embedded mainstream feature. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

Erasmo Barresi has asked me to implement the changes to the main page as described here: Wikisource:Scriptorium#New main page. I see no objections on Scriptorium; however, my internet connection keeps dropping, so I can't reliably edit something as important but spread out as the main page right now. If someone else would like to look at this, please go ahead. In the meantime, I have added a watchlist announcement just in case there are objections or opinions from people who have not read Scriptorium. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

User Name[edit]

I noticed User:Wikilivres, it would have a problem with w:Wikipedia:Username policy not sure we have a policy. Should we suggest a name change? JeepdaySock (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The username policy (from memory) is supposed to be Wikimedia-wide, so I think it does need changing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Posted a note to the users talk page. Jeepday (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It isn't our username policy, and it is one of quite a number. I am going to go out on a limb and say that the user behind that account is probably Eclecticology, the new proponent for WikiLivres. If the accounts sole purpose is going to to add wikiklinks, and either exclusively here, or other WS wikis, then I don't particularly have an issue, just ask that we identify that the account/bot does certain activities. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maintenance reports[edit]

Any ideas why these reports stopped being refreshed the usual every 3 days or so? The last refresh was on October 31st. I hope it has nothing to do with me fully blocking an unscanctioned BOT from insisting on running through the reports without the community's consent & in spite of repeated refusals to grant the flag. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

From my hassling ppl, I have determined that they are meant o be running as cronjobs every several days, and they run on puppet. Give them a few more days, and then log a bugzilla would seem to be the solution. I checked other wikis and see 1 Nov and 4 Nov on those wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like these are working now, dated 16 November. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Uh, just as an aside about that block, タチコマ robot is a global bot (though after some investigation, it doesn't appear that we've definitively made a call to follow policy, which is a shame). It's got edits on dozens of other wikis without a local bot flag, and enwikisource is the only one where it's blocked. EVula // talk // // 17:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Whatever it takes. I'd gladly unblock the Bot if that other avenue is just as effective. Past direct interaction with the owner only seems to sink in for a couple a weeks at time and then its back again - hoping to fly under the radar or something after not only being denied the flag, but control over any of the tasks as well.

The whole thing is ridiculous - auto generate a list of errors only have it automatically corrected. Why bother? Just fix the errors when detected in one shot. It seems like busy work for busy bodies and not a meaningful tracking & identification regime with the goal of reducing the amount of errors being generated by regular contributors. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is WhiteCat's bot and global just means that it qualified globally. If it cannot follow local process, then it should be stopped. In some way, I feel that we are outside the scope of vast majority of global bots and we are outside of Global bot wikis. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
That is the nuance we keep missing here - According to the Meta standard policy, once global status is secured the maintenance of double-redirects is universally allowed. Double-redirects here on en.WS, however, are unique cases typically - spanning subtle changes in practice & policy at any given point and time in our evolution compared to the normal, no-brainer renaming done at most other sister sites. Automated corrections here only compound existing issues, never giving them the chance to rise to anyone's attention at the same time (never mind the fact most weeks there are hardly any current changes that need fixing to begin with!).

We went down this road twice now with this individual to try to explain we'd rather do this particular task manually for those reasons but it's being taken for granted that the Global status somehow trumps our local preferences. In short, we'd need to join the wikiset only to opt out of auto approval when it seems to me the default state should be to deny the running of Global bots unless a domain agrees to be listed. This is why folks who are already globally flagged insist on applying and securing an additional local bot flag from us (albeit done primarily for Interwiki stuff which is not an issue) even though most of them never contributed a blessed thing to en.WS nor pick-up the workload when it comes to our occasional backlogs. Why the Global & Local bot flags to accomplish what the former already allows?

In addition, out of our 30 or so flagged Bots, I don't recognize more than half of them. Who are these people and why are they still flagged? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I see we don't have a way in the Bot policy to de-flag bots that are no longer being used. Should we? Particularly when they belong to de-flagged admins who are no longer editing here? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Why pad the rolls with inaccuracies? I don't think the level of the user should matter as much as does when was the Bot last run for an applied & approved task. 2 years of inactivity with 90 days of notice seems like resonable amounts of time to trigger flag auto-removal to me. It might even get folks off the sidelines to address some outstanding issues in the process - any up tick would be better than the current level of participation imo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
We have annual confirmation for admins, any reason not to do the exact same for bots? Jeepday (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that we need a policy per se to deflag bots, we can just have the conversation, though I can see the positiveness of indicative values. GO3 suggested values that sound fair, though I would say that it would be the user or the bot needs to achieve, not the bot alone, ie. if the owner is active, the bot can also be considered so. active report [bot report and I am still trying to dig up a last edit date check. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Somewhat disagree. If the fear is long-time bots that belong to folks who have moved on to greener pastures (stewards, crats, developers, etc.) would somehow how lose their bot-flag by what appears as inactivity, we can simply make the trigger only apply users without any "higher level" or additional bits. Previous successful flag holders would most likely have preferential or expedited restorations regardless, no? It seems to me if somebody as "low" as an admin resigns or is removed, the likelihood he/she is still participating here is slim to none. Currently, there is no downside to leaving the community for stupid long amounts of time. I see this as a way to help mitigate against that (accept it or not, button collectors hate to lose a button if they can avoid it). -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I didn't explain that well, as I am not in disagreement. I meant if user is active, though their bot is quiet, both are considered active, this is independent of any rights. Admins who are inactive, will soon be no longer be admins, and same would apply to their bots. I would think that turning a bot flag back on where the existing criteria and need exists, could be an expedited process. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, alright then. I must of got the signals crossed there or something. Sorry for the added confusion. Let's let this simmer a bit and see if anyone else has something to add. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Let’s post something at Scriptorium to get feed back from the larger audience. I don’t have the time to write it at the moment, but hopefully in the next 8 to 48 hours, I will. If either of you would like you would like to write the draft Confirmation rules and/or post to Scriptorium, you are welcome to. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Posted Wikisource:Scriptorium#Bot_Confirmation. Jeepday (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wish to cancel or close my wikisource account[edit]

I am so sorry, in a moment of madness I opened a wikisource account, but it is too advanced for me and I wish to close it. How do I do that? Please give EASY instructions. Guinevere (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I am really distraught about this. I created a userpage, I have no global account, but there is no facility of closing my account. Please HELP me to close my account - or do it forcibly for me.Guinevere (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia doesn't have a way to "close" accounts. But don't worry about that, we here at Wikisource have no access whatever to your account information. All you have to do is not use the account. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the user page that you created, which is easy. That said, we would much rather assist you to learn our systems and have a new contributor. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 06:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Admins could delete accounts. The extension User Merge and Delete is convenient for that in my experience. One can create a user called Deleted User or Closed Account and merge other accounts into it. Past edits by the merged accounts will be listed as having been done by Deleted User. It's rare to have an explicit requests to do this, but it's a way to prune spammer user accounts. This extension is not installed on en:WikiSource but it's not difficult to install. So it would be possible to close accounts basically -- not that I know more than the admins here. Maybe there's a reason not to do it. -- Econterms (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that would be a violation of the licensing agreement that we all intrinsically agree to by editing. And in this case, there's nothing to really get moved around; they made four edits related to closing their account, and one edit to their userpage (since deleted). On enwiki, we've got a process for vanishing in place, but even over there, we probably wouldn't honor the request; there's just nothing worth vanishing there.
What this extension would be handy for is on merging accounts of users that have (for various reasons) edits divvied up among multiple accounts (such as fixing botched renames). But there will never be a "Deleted User" account that all abandoned edits get swept into. EVula // talk // // 18:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
". . . that would be a violation of the licensing agreement that we all intrinsically agree to by editing" -- in what way or aspect? It seems to me that Guinevere's request to make an account go away was reasonable, and I'm sympathetic to anyone who doesn't want some past password to be usable or discoverable by some future evildoer who might make edits with it or make inferences about one's other passwords. It's achievable on this system, (perhaps imperfectly, with some past edits & signatures renamed), and I believe on practically all computer systems that have accounts. I was just sticking my nose in to get around the claim that it wasn't technically achievable, just to help direct thoughts back to the user/usability request. Sounds like you see a conflicting high principle here, which I'm not seeing, but it sounds important. -- Econterms (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No WMF project is ever going to green-light the mass consolidation of edits from multiple people to a single account; each persons' edits need to be attributable to a single source (even if they get renamed to some made-up account name, as per w:WP:VANISH, it's still an individual account that the edits are tied to). It has nothing to do with how reasonable or unreasonable a request is; it's the fact that it breaks the GFDL attribution of contributions that is the problem. See the "By clicking the 'Save Page' button, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution" verbiage just above the save page / show preview / show changes buttons for the actual legal stuff (which is all greek to me, hence my total passing of the buck when it comes to trying to explain it). EVula // talk // // 10:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

IP block exemption for User:BarkingFish[edit]

I have granted BarkingFish IP block exemption, as he is using proxies to access the public internet from within some strange organisational network (hopefully to be fixed in the New Year). This is supported by an existing IPBE on enWP. This is our first IPBE, so that's a milestone of sorts, I suppose. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 01:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As a point, if someone has a global IPBE, there is generally not a need to do a local version, UNLESS we have a local block in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

recommendation for autopatroller[edit]

I don't normally do this, but based on validating some of the editing (PotM) done by User:Marjoleinkl, (and some of their validation--and fixing--of some of my editing), it seems to me that they would merit autopatroller status. Your discretion. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A review showed no issues. Seems to understand the ins & outs as well. Yes check.svg Done . -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Reality check please[edit]

Hi, page User:Seba3214100 was deleted by me in October as outside WS:WWI. When it was recreated last week I asked the user on their talk page to explain how these table were helping enWS. There has been no answer. Before I delete and block I want to pause and check that I'm not heading off-course. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well if we go by their user contribs / SUL info, you can see they've been blocked just about every place they've edited. I have no problem with deleting and/or blocking them in light of this pattern. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit[edit]

Template:Header Please add Wikivoyage to the potential sister links. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per w:Wikivoyage it is a new sister, but not seeing it at meta:Main_Page. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I do find it at meta:Wikivoyage and meta:Complete list of Wikimedia projects. Seems like it should be added, other thoughts?. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Per w:Template:Wikivoyage, Wikivoyage officially launches on 15 January. WP isn't linking to WV until then, and perhaps we should follow the same line? - Htonl (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
We might as well make linking possible. It probably won't be used much, other than perhaps travel writing and some portals (eg. nations and regions). I can't do it now but I'll have time later today. ("Travel guide" seems the obvious text element.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Might as well make room for Incubator and WikiData while you're at it; they go live a couple of months after WikiVoyage does. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiVoyage isn't out of beta, so please leave it until it launches, though we could sandbox and have it ready, and as GO3 suggests, Wikidata. I don't think that we need to worry about incubator, as those sites that utilise (language and sister interwiki) it redirect to it by WMF coding. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh, it's not like adding it to the template will cause a slew of WikiVoyage links to propagate out around Wikisource; it would still require people to add the link to pages, and I don't think that would happen with any degree of regularity between now and January 15th. *shrug* EVula // talk // // 17:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Truth be known, I doubt that we will add any ever, when looking at the fact that modern tourism isn't close to our scope [opposite ends of the wikispectrum]. I would think that the closest might be the use from Portal ns:. Similarly, I don't see that 'incubator' will ever get a hit, however, one never knows! — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Probably not; but incoming from tourism is definitely a possibility, and no reason not include all the family members in our outgoing links. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I was gone for a while. I've made the sandbox version of plain sister active and updated the headers. Both wikivoyage and wikidata are now valid parameters in all headers, with a week to spare before Wikivoyage is officially launched. The country-based portals should all already link to wikivoyage (see Portal:Australia, for example) as they are based on a standard template and are the most appropriate pages to do so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle is unwell[edit]

Our NZ comrade, Beeswaxcandle is quite unwell. His partner has contacted me to let me know, and on behalf of the community I have sent our best wishes to them both while BWC undergoes treatment. Gnome-face-sad-2011-12-05.jpgbillinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This is terrible! I just now saw the above message, "quite unwell" -- "undergoes treatment", an operation? How serious is this? I had thought it was a cold. My heart and my prayers go out to our kind-hearted and sincere wikisource friend! Beez is our friend and our family! —Maury (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)