Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
  • Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 2,587,668
No. of articles = 726,544
No. of files = 23,136
No. of edits = 9,210,301

No. of pages in Main = 434,765
No. of pages in Page: = 1,791,685
No. validated in Page: = 393,811
No. proofread in Page: = 598,372
No. not proofread in Page: = 623,847
No. problematic in Page: = 29,414
No. of validated works = 3,204
No. of proofread only works = 2,055
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 226,397
% transcluded pages in Main = 52.07
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,891,131
No. of active users = 328
No. of group:autopatrolled = 458
No. in group:sysop = 30
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 21

Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to undertaken by stewards
    • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
    • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
    • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Request for unprotection of Is There a Santa Claus?[edit]

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

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

Request protection of Main Page templates[edit]

According to the very first point under Wikisource:Protection_policy#Special_cases “The main page should always be protected…”, yet this edit took place today. Some care and attention, please? (Normally Phe-bot is the sole updater of Template:ALL TEXTS!) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have place soft protection on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To fellow administrators, I have up'd the protection on a couple of templates that won't need updating. I have a question about Template:Highlights, should this be sitting at semi/soft? If we are unlikely to change it, then we should be protecting it further. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

The more I read up on this RL change and the subsequent actions needed (or taken?), the more I get the feeling some of my approach to site wide & gadget .js/.css organization over the months is going to behind this week's latest problems. If that winds up to be the case, then I'm truly, truly sorry for that. Let me try to document those steps and the reasoning behind them in hopes someone (@Krinkle:) can made sense of our current state and put us on the right path post RL change(s).

Originally, we not only had a ridiculous amount of scripting and .css definitions in our primary site-wide MediaWiki files to begin with but also called a number of stand-alone .js/.css files within those primary MediaWiki files called unnecessarily in addition to calls to various sub-scripts on top of any User: selected gadgets being called -- some of which eventually became default loaded per concensus, etc..

A simple depiction of the key files mentioned minus any Gadgets basically went like this...

Over several months with help of other folks, I began to consolidate and/or eliminate as much scripting calls as I could -- creating optional Gadgets whenever possible -- and tried much the same for the .css class definitions. The rationale behind doing this can be found in several places, most importantly: Wikipedia. The premise to keep the MediaWiki site-wide files "lean" goes like this....

 * Keep code in MediaWiki:Common.js to a minimum as it is unconditionally
 * loaded for all users on every wiki page. If possible create a gadget that is
 * enabled by default instead of adding it here (since gadgets are fully
 * optimized ResourceLoader modules with possibility to add dependencies etc.)
 * Since Common.js isn't a gadget, there is no place to declare its
 * dependencies, so we have to lazy load them with mw.loader.using on demand and
 * then execute the rest in the callback. In most cases these dependencies will
 * be loaded (or loading) already and the callback will not be delayed. In case a
 * dependency hasn't arrived yet it'll make sure those are loaded before this.

The result of that effort as it stands today can be depicted basically like this....

The predominant change in order to move towards the previously cited rationale & approach is that the bulk of the scripting and class definitions now reside in the default-enabled Site gadget files, MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. And by no means is the current state the desired final approach; its been a work in progress as time allowed over several months.

Obviously, now with the recent change to Gadgets and ResourceLoader, either the existing rationale or my attempts (or both) are no longer in harmony -- if they ever were. In my view, we need someone like Krinkle (or maybe the collective minds of Wikitech-l?) to take the time and attention needed to come in here and straighten all this out -- one way or the other. My gut tells me THAT will resolve the reported loss of one thing or another post-RL change(s). Again, if I'm right about my actions exacerbating problems for other, I apologize and take full responsibility. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes in addition to yours that hopefully make things work a bit more like you intended. I'm happy to provide further guidance but that probably works better for a more specific need or question. Perhaps bring it up on Wikitech-l or on IRC so we I can help you move forward with any unresolved issues. Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gadgetised GoogleOCR tool[edit]

Hi to all. From a discussion in one of our help spaces, it was identified that there was an "improved/better" OCR tool around and in use (GoogleOCR). I have quickly added this as a gadget in the development section, and just poked some text at it. We should assess that it is a better tool, and if it is then we probably should retire the old tool. The text at MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleOCR could do with some improvement and probably the insertion of file:GoogleOcr toolbar button.png. I will look at it again when I have some quality time. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It is used on Wikisources in languages with scripts that are not supported by the standard Tesseract OCR system. It should not be used where that system can be used instead, as there is a limit to the number of requests we can make against Google's services.
as a note.— Mpaa (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
As answered by @Samwilson: in a Wikisource global chat, the limit for Google Cloud Vision API (i.e., our Google OCR button) is 1800 requests per minute. This limit can only be crossed by mass-scale ocr by multiple users simultaneously. So I don't think we need to be concerned about this "limit". Hrishikes (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mpaa, @Hrishikes: Yup, it's true. We only once got over three requests per minute in the last month. If we want to use Google in place of phetools, we can do so and probably not worry about excessive usage (given that it's still just an ad hoc thing; if we wanted to automate whole works being run though it that might require more discussion, although would probably also be fine). Sam Wilson 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
If we are running whole works through, I would guess that we would limit these, either as priority, or rate-limiting, as they are hardly urgent. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: yeah, and even if we did we probably wouldn't be doing it all that often. We could do a 500 page work every day, for instance, and not get close to the limits. :) I'm in favour of retiring the old gadget. Sam Wilson 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As pywikibot runs pages sequentially, as long as we run with some due consideration it shouldn't particularly matter for the tool, as the bot usually runs at slower rates than pt0 or pt:1 anyway. Just make sure that we aren't running multiple parallel high-rate bot sessions. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone to assist a new user[edit]

Is there someone there who will be able to try and communicate with Rafaeladasilvamelo (talkcontribs), as my methodology is failing. There are a range of, what I consider, problematic edits: empty page creations with just headers (now deleted), unusual editing (reverted), incorrect use of headings of works of where we have a parent (updated, and relinked) additions of text directly when we have the scans available. I have no doubt that this is a good faith editor, it is just levels of editing outside of our existing style. It needs someone with a different approach than me, or simply someone other than me. Thanks if there is someone who can assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems continue. The user is now working within A Dictionary of Saintly Women and has now been informed and prodded twice about the presence of scans, though wishes to copy and paste text to subpages; in addition we get headerless pages, headers that are empty, pages with one word of text, no prev/next, or simply poor quality proofreading. The user does not communicate, and where communication is attempted they have removed that communications (we have had four admins there communicating).

We are not getting quality work, and we are getting work that needs a high level of support to bring it close to standard. I have given up even trying with the worst pages and am now just deleting them where there are multiple errors (indicator of what is happening). The choices are to either let poor quality work exist, or we need a means to improve the quality of the work, either by the user, or by other community. Usually with this sort of editing we have been able to communicate and support users to are preferred means of editing and style, though that has not worked in this instance. If we are unable to get an improvement, and we are unable to get communication, then we may to intervene directly. It seems that we are moving to intervention. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This issues continue in other areas. I am proposing to block this user after issuing them with a final warning. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I should add that I've been through all cross-wiki contributions of this editor that are in English. Most of them had to be reverted either by me or another editor had found them first. The contributions to ptWP were more challenging to assess as my Portuguese is extremely limited, but I note that many contributions there were also reverted, corrected or amended in some way. I am not averse to the suggestion of an enforced break from editing here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have just blocked Rafaeladasilvamelo for three days, and stated that their editing is not working. Special:Contributions/Rafaeladasilvamelo shows a continuation of problematic editing, and one that it does not show the community is addressing and resolving. Edits that change the context of a page, and without edit summary; creation of subpages that are more like categories; pages that are scan-supported where the text alone is added; texts that are evidently text-supported though not uploaded, where they are copying and pasting, then putting images of tables. The work is not of a standard, and the user does not wish to converse on these matters, despite numerous attempts by numerous administrators.

I believe that these Some facts concerning the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. Presented to a hearing of legislative committees. Albany, April 5, 1910 pages should be deleted. If we cannot have the conversation with the user, and seek suitable changes, then we should extend the block. Also note Special:DeletedContributions/Rafaeladasilvamelobillinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

request for a move[edit]

After a discussion I wanted to move a page to its previous title Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/A Supplement to Mons. Pingré’s Memoir on the Parallax of the Sun (now redirect), but I moved it to Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/A Supplement to Mons. Pingré’s Memoir on the Parallax of the Sun28 by mistake and it seems I am not allowed to move it once more. May I ask for moving it? Thank you very much and apologies for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits[edit]

Perhaps somebody could keep an eye on Editing Wikipedia, there have been a couple of blankings by an IP editor recently. I left a note at the IP's talk page, but I'm going to be offline for a while. -Pete (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have poked a soft protection onto it for a year. Generally no need for it to be edited. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, thank you -- the soft protection seems entirely sensible. But the IP block, to me, seems excessive; how can we know whether it was malicious, or an innocent mistake? There were only two edits. Also, since I already took a "assume good faith" approach on the IP's talk page, if it was an innocent mistake, they are likely to be confused by the mixed messages. Could you unblock? I'm happy to keep an eye on the IP in the next few weeks (though I'll be offline this weekend). -Pete (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a one day block, so I wouldn't fuss it. Once I will AGF for a test, twice like that and I will put a shot across the bows, especially as it places a marker against the IP address for any future instance. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent block[edit]

I have just blocked an IP address for vandalism. I will look into block procedure more closely, but am open to suggestions about how to handle this one. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, in regards to that particular IP you may want to see this - [[1]]. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Knocking on your door. I am sure you are aware of my lack of confidence where blocking is concerned. Looking for some guidance here. I'll take any lumps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I changed a few things. In general, we don't block IPs forever, since they do usually get shuffled around. Also, I blocked talk page and email access; we wouldn't usually do that, but this wasn't vandalism of main space pages, it was abuse of a contributor, and there's no need to give them talk page or email access to continue it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and for the explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@IanDBeacon: I like your sort of bothersomeness. Please keep it up. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Karel Čapek[edit]

I would like to ask to move Author:Karel Capek to his full name Author:Karel Čapek (now a redirect). Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators[edit]

Hi. Please see I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome. Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as I am concerned I would trust any admin who feels skilled and confident enough to tackle such edits.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I can handle the technical aspects of it. However, it can take me a while to get around to tasks that take longer than a few minutes, so I don't want to create a false expectation of being able to handle time sensitive matters on my own. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should decide how to address the fact that EnWS has no m:interface administrators. I see basically the following options. Please add/amend as you feel appropriate.

Option A - Assign right on demand when needed

Option B - Assign right permanently to willing Admins, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

As I said above, I am for the simplest one.— Mpaa (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Option C - Assign right permanently to selected Admins, after approval process, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

Option C sounds like you're being volunteered (based on the lack of the word 'willing'). ;) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Option D - assign the rights to all the admins, who have already been vetted for community approval, and then whoever has the ability and desire can make use of it as they will and as needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Option D would make the most sense for us. For anyone to get themselves to the point that we trust them with the admin tools just so that they can mess around in the interface, they would be playing a very long game. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Beeswaxcandle, Option D, although I would also be fine with the right only going to admins who express an interest. BD2412 T 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It is so rare I disagree with Beeswaxcandle but this must be one of those times. The whole point of this change is to prevent the ignorant from accidentally screwing up - insulting as the implications undoubtedly are! As such under the new regime trust is no longer enough; perhaps somebody ought to draw up some kind of eligibility examination…? 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and accidental changes are easily reversed. If we had more users it would be more of a problem, but as it stands this kind of distinction is more cumbersome than helpful in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for move[edit]

I would like to ask to move back Author:Václav Jebavý to Author:Otakar Březina per discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Pseudonyms. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Fix move[edit]

As far as I can tell Author:Ellis Paxson Oberholzer was not moved correctly (preserving history). It was recreated at Author:Ellis Paxon Oberholtzer in an attempt to fix the spelling of the author's name, but is still inconsistent with Wikipedia's choice (which is not necessarily a problem). --Azertus (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

IP edits[edit]

Can an administrator please review/block 2001:56a:76ec:e800:e0ae:62c5:d3ce:6c10? See, e.g., [2][3][4] My request for admin help cc'd at WS scriptorium here Apt-ark (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Need revdel on IP edits[edit]

You'll see my reverts. EncycloPetey, are you still on call? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, he's back, on my talk page. You don't have to revdelete that nonsense since it's just a bunch of blah blah. I don't know if you have CU, but running that is always a good idea. Also a good idea: semi-protecting these talk pages from this person. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just flaggin'[edit]

Hi, just flagging for probity/scrutiny purposes: I closed and archived my own annual confirmation[5]. Cheers, Hesperian 02:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruption by User:EncycloPetey[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You don't appear lazy.

You appear insanely dedicated.

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

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

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

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for move[edit]

I have moved Act of the 29th of February 1920 setting forth the constitution and jurisdiction of the Senate to Act of the 29th of February 1920 setting forth the Constitution and jurisdiction of the Senate, which was a mistake, as the title in fact does not refer to "the Constitution" but to "the constitution ... of the Senate". May I ask an admin to move the page back, please? Thank you and apologies for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as requested —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Spam whitelist request[edit]

Requesting as it appears on Page:Code Swaraj - Carl Malamud - Sam Pitroda.djvu/215. -Einstein95 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done BethNaught (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for move vandalisim cleanup...[edit]

In cleaning up vandalism over on English Wikivoyage I also found a user that's done a LOT of move vandalism here:

Thanks in advance for the cleanup, and I would also request an indeterminate block on this user, given that they appear to have vandalised a number of wikis. [7]

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beth and I cleaned up the issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Autopatroller User Rights[edit]

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

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

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

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

The URL for the Spam-Whitelist request would be either or the shortened version

Thank you very much!

Kind regards,

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

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

Disruptive SPA[edit]

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

@IanDBeacon: user is now globally locked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


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

The edits were all appropriately dealt with at the time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template[edit]

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

@CES1596: what is not working, that this fix is to accomplish? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I temporally replaced the value of "sort key" of Index:Nihongi by Aston.djvu "Nihongi" by "Aston", but it still is listed in Category:Index_Not-Proofread&from=N. --CES1596 (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Why would we want a work titled Nihongi to sort under "A"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Although this example may not be appropriate, it shows that we cannot use sort key even when it is necessary. I found the problem in Japanese version, where some files are named in Japanese. --CES1596 (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: We can find more examples in Category:Index_Not-Proofread&from=0, Category:Index_Proofread&from=0, and Category:Index_Validated&from=0, such as Index:1909historyofdec04gibbuoft.djvu, Index:(1848) Observations on Church and State- JF Ferrier.pdf, Index:1947SydneyHailstorm.djvu, Index:20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf, Index:124-2009 Brunetti Obit.djvu, and Index:161006-Eatt-Text of Royal Warrant Merchant Navy Medal for Meritorious Service.pdf. --CES1596 (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've made the change; it doesn't seem to work either. You can use an individual Index's page info page to see the sort info, e.g. [8]Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried changing the content model. The sort key works when the content model is wikitext, but not when the content model is book index. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thank you for your cooperation. I inserted "{{DEFAULTSORT:Catholic Prayer Book, The}}" to "Table on Contents" of Index:The Catholic prayer book.djvu, as we do in Japanese version. It seems to work. Does the location of the sort key in MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template affect the result? --CES1596 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: If so, {{#if:{{{Remarks|}}}|<td style="padding:0 0.25em 0 0.25em; vertical-align:top; width:30%;">{{{Remarks}}}|<td style="display:none; padding:0; vertical-align:top;">}}{{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if:{{{Key|}}}|{{{Key}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}</td> may work. --CES1596 (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
We confirmed that it does not work in Japanese version. --CES1596 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@CES1596: I believe it is a problem with the Book Index content model, and I would suggest reaching out to the devs via Phabricator for resolution. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Thank you for your trouble. --CES1596 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


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

I am not in the oversight group, but I can still delete revisions. Is it possible you are unable to do so because of a browser issue? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I cannot hide/delete revisions. I have tried using two different browsers on two different computers running two different OS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Deletion / block request[edit]

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

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

User:Abuse filter user page de-redlinked[edit]

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

CommonsDelinker Edit Filter[edit]

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

I don't know much about that, but I can say that the edit tags in watchlists and page histories make it easier for me to quickly identify them, and is beneficial to me. There may be other benefits that other editors use as well.—Also, I think we tag all the bots, so this one is par for the course —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I guess it's just a bother for me because it fills up Special:AbuseLog which I semi-regularly monitor alongside Special:RecentChanges. Speaking of which...MJLTalk 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I just was looking at Special:Tags, and we apparently only tag CommonsDelinker. No other bot has such a tag. This includes Wikisource-bot, TarmstroBot, and SDrewthbot -- each of which have more edits than any other user on this site (source). –MJLTalk 15:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


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

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

Speedy deleted all three as out of scope for us. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't page blanking[edit]

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

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

Confession time - I made a mistake...[edit]

For reference, I managed to blank something by mistake when (unexpectedly) logged out:-

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

American Seashells[edit]

Could you, please, undelete:

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

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

Done. Yann: thanks!--Zyephyrus (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Moving Pictures in Rhyme[edit]

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