Jump to content

Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2014

From Wikisource


Checkuser notification

Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Log

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

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

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


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

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

What is it that you are wanting done? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to notify administrators in case we start to see degradation of performance, like delays on the server. They will be apprised that this "service vandalism" may be a possible cause.
Denial-of-service attacks are fairly common to large websites, but I have never seen such an attack at Wikisource. If you or any other administrator knows of anyone I should notify of this attack who works with the server and may be able to take preventative measures, please let me know. ResScholar (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if these play a role in that or not but there is no way these [nearly] non-existant User: pages should be recieving the amount of views that they currently are or recently have... -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I asked around about this, and there's been no sign of a DDoS attack. Actually, the exact response was, "if someone's attempting to do that, they're probably not doing a very good job :)" The current belief is that it's most likely some bot or spider that's screwed up. Given the size of the traffic, it'll throw off the whole-project page view counts a bit. Ops will keep an eye out, and no big worries, but big thanks for noticing and posting about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention. You might want to look into...
* Special:HideBanners - view stats
...too. It is suppose to be cookie activated or something after donating to the wiki-foundation (seems unlikely; if even half of that @ $1 a hit was true, I'd like a new BMW for Christmas btw [3 series is fine]).
I don't know why such a convoluted local solution to hide banners is needed in the first place. Anyway, for a page that doesn't (or shouldn't?) exist, its certainly not a redlink and really busy over time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that every instance of triggering that page is a donation; I think that the way this works, the page is triggered every single time a donor (or maybe anyone who has clicked the button to hide the banner?) visits any page—which, if you look at a hundred pages today, could mean a hundred times. At any rate, the spike in November is expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Okie-dokie remove the ~11 million hits for November and that is still some percentage of ~3 million hits that should not be possible to count in the first place. If somebody donates to the foundation, they should recieve a barnstarn-like banner full of thank yous & such on their User: page or similar - end of story; not hassle everybody else by invoking a cookie-reliant banner that non-donator's wouldn't be able to see to begin with (note the red x for lack of an image file) by design and [most likely] that remaining Users disable from seeing through their preference settings at some point in their wiki-lifetime. I'm begining to think that faux double-nonsense is by design to quietly inflate the bottom line traffic numbers or something. Maybe its been like that for so long nobody bothers to question it never mind be aware of it? (Even funnier: almost 92 million hits to just the top 8 English WikiWhatevers this past year alone). Either way, its out in the open now - what gets done about it now would be by choice & up to the higher-ups I guess.
Back on point. The crazy traffic has pretty much stopped on 3 of the 4 Users mentioned on or about the 16th of this month so Kudos for that. Moving forward @ June, the only "strange" activity that persists [for en.WS] still point to...
... the former being listed before. Can you point someone to these 2 & have them look into it as well? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm folks, as one of the named pair above I'm happy if there is anything I can do (or not do—block me for a period if that helps getting to the bottom of this.) I am curious as to the conclusions and will assist in any way I can. AuFCL (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how the existence of a web cookie "hassles everybody else", and posting a barnstar-like banner is both not going to work for logged-out donors (which is most of them) or for donors who value their privacy.
Fundraising happens year-round, with a focus in November and early December. Probably all of those hits are valid.
AuFCL, one of the hypotheses is that this traffic is driven by a poorly written botnet that is scraping websites for text to add to spammy e-mail messages (to get them past e-mail filters by having "random" text at the bottom of the message). If that's what's going on, then blocking you couldn't have any benefit at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. I followed a link from Wikidata and wound up on this project, only to find that I has been pinged. I have no idea why people (or, more likely, bots) are looking at my non-existent Wikisource user page in large numbers, but it looks like in the past month, my user page here has gotten 23 times more hits than my user page on English Wikipedia, where I am actually active. So... good luck, I guess. I don't think I know anything that can help. Sven Manguard (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There's some (I believe) related details at English Wikipedia's Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request of consideration of possible CU

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

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

Bureaucrat requests

Latest comment: 10 years ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Username change requests

Put your user name change requests here.

One at meta


Usurpation Request

D_abhi → Abhinav

I would like to change my username to complete the SUL process. Confirmatory diff. Thank you! D abhi (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You should be good to go with the SUL process now.--BirgitteSB 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Global renames available from 8 July

With the forthcoming update 1.24wmf12, which will roll-out to enWS on 8 July, there will now be a function available to stewards to undertake renames. This wiki should be aware of the proposed policy m:Global rename policy and the discussion that has taken place at Stewards' noticeboard.

I would be interested to hear from our 'crats (@Zhaladshar, @BirgitteSB, @Hesperian:) by which means they will be undertaking renames in light of this change. One thing that I would like to highlight is that if renames are undertaken to a new name singularly at a wiki, then this will inhibit a global rename, due to the global rename tool requiring a clean target username rename help. So to my understanding, for discombobulated accounts, there will still need to rename and usurp as per existing practices, though for fresh renames, the 'crats may wish to redirect users to m:Steward requests/Username changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested also to hear about how we are going to handle this. I picked the log on I am using now, long before I realized I was going to become w:Wikiaddict I have been considering an upgraded name for some time. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just will need to be wary of counts, and still seeking that clarification. With your total, you should be okay. For me, na-ah. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you choose, you definitely don't want to end up with a non-global account.
If you're trying to figure out whether you have a global account, go to Special:Preferences and look for "Global account status:" "All in order!" is the best answer. "In migration" may or may not require any action. Anything else usually means that your account will need to be renamed during the next year (months from now). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Global account status: All in order! so that is good. If I go to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth and do not find the name I want to use, does that mean no one is using it anyplace? Jeepday (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"global account status: All in order! Your account is active on 63 project sites."

I would like to have my name changed from William Maury Morris II to Maury. —Maury (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you can request this at m:Steward requests/Username changes. They're probably still updating the directions for the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Billinghurst above: I guess my approach would be something like this:

  1. Perform the usual check of validity of request. i.e. we're not being gamed / trolled.
  2. Check if the account is global. If not global, then proceed with rename. Else...
  3. Educate user on global versus local renames. Explain that a local rename will detach the local account from the global account. Explain how to request a global rename.
  4. If the user confirms that they really want to enact a local rename, then shrug shoulders and proceed.

How does that sound?

Hesperian 02:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My method of operation is pretty much the same as Hesperian's. I will make sure the right method of renaming is offered and made clear to the user requesting the name change so that the change can be as efficient as possible. I'll still do it however they want at the end of the day, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that it would be preferable not to create any more local accounts. That's just setting up the user to get stuck with an unpleasant, forced rename next year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Two admin confirmations reach negative threshold and need to be converted to a full community vote

Would a 'crat, or if they unavailable an administrator, be able to convert the two confirmations at Wikisource:Administrators into full community votes as two of the three have reached the -3 threshold. Thank to whomever has time. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I converted Inductiveload's to a vote of confidence. ResScholar was already that way.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I have posted community notification at the Scriptorium. Hesperian 00:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests

Other

Update the block text - 3rd req

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Extended content

Hi there admins ,this is the final time we are going to replace the [Mediawiki:Blockedtext] if this plan fails, then we'll keep the current message. I want it to be done By 14:55 16 February 2014 using this message:


You are currently unable to edit Wikisource.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from $7 has been blocked by $1 for the following reason(s):

$2

This block has been set to expire: $6.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Username policy ·   Appealing blocks: policy and guide

If the block notice is unclear, or it does not appear to relate to your actions, please ask for assistance as described below.


What does this mean?

What is a block?

A block is a measure used to protect Wikisource from possible improper use or modification in breach of editorial policies. Blocks can apply to a user account, an IP address, or a range of IP addresses that is deemed responsible for or related to problematic activity. You may be an innocent victim of collateral damage, whereby a block of some other activity has accidentally caused your account to be inaccessible. The reason for your block may be found above.

Most common causes

  1. Problem with your editing or Wikisource behavior (under any account or IP address) - your account or a connected IP has been used in a problematic way or there is a concern about your editing. The reason should be in the box above.
  2. Problem with your username - your username was unsuitable and has been blocked; you need to choose another before continuing.

What do I do now?

  • If instructions are given above in the block message, follow them.
  • If you have never edited Wikisource before and/or do not have an account, consider requesting one at http://toolserver.org/~acc/, which allows you to edit despite the block on your IP address. Requests to unblock your IP address even if you are innocent will generally not be granted. We apologize for the inconvenience, but you must request an account and log in using that account in order to edit. This is necessary to prevent abusive users who may be using a similar IP address to yours.
  • If you wish to appeal the block, or you believe you have been blocked by mistake, please see the following section.

Appealing

You have many routes to appeal the block or its duration. Firstly, if you are a registered user and have a valid e-mail address confirmed, you can contact $1 via e-mail (via that link, or by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link to the left of their userpage). This feature can be removed if abused. You should include the following information about your block in all such communication: Username: $7, IP address: $3, Block ID: $5.

Alternatively, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review the block. To do so, add

{{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page to request unblocking. You must state a reason for this, and the block can then be discussed.

If $7 is not blocked, your IP address ($3) or range may have been blocked. Please check here. If this is the case, please copy and paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page.

{{unblock-ip|1=$3|2=<nowiki>$2</nowiki>|3=$1}}

Please note: While this block may be upsetting or unexpected, abuse of appeal processes, repeatedly using the unblock template when denied, personal attacks, or impolite conduct may lead to the removal of your ability to edit your talk page.

2602:304:AF53:3E99:AC35:318B:58B:EAD6 13:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done and I am glad that was your last request. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(all admins) Ancient blocks should be removed

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

In our BlockList we have some ancient and quite redundant blocks, and worst of all they are infinite. These days global blocks will be in place for generic problem IP addresses, especially open proxies, so we have these checks in place for no real benefit. I would like to suggest that admins could spend a few minutes each day and we look to remove the ancient cruft. In my opinion, anything that is infinite should go, anywhere you see it, and the maximum that we should usually be blocking is a year and only the worst of the worst should get longer than that. Thanks for any help that you can give. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on that point - are you saying that there are too many <created> User: accounts who have managed to get themselves blocked forever and now THAT is somehow a problem? I can understand when it comes to IP/annon infractions - that those should never made permanent etc. etc. etc. - thats fine. Otherwise, unless there is some sort of resource hit, foundation infraction or just extra work involved for someone in keeping in place what seems to be working, I don't see the need for any of that. If somebody wants "back in" they can go through the steps and we'll address it on those merits on a case-by-case basis from there, no? -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Only meant blocks on IP addresses, apologies for not getting all the thought bubble on paper. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK - I've done a bunch but there are still about 600 single IP blocks left. The question now is what to do with the block notice banners added to these IP's talk pages (plus there are redirects from the main IP's user page to those talk pages). Seems like all those pages need to be deleted as well if the blocks are being lifted, no?

Also, there are a bunch of blocks that seem to have been added by the "system" rather than by admins from ~2005 - I wasn't sure if those were OK to unblock too. What say you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur with deleting the page or the template would be equally appropriate. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I am told that there is a means to push the unblocks using the API. I am yet to work it out, and will continue to give it a try. Re the blocks and templates. Hmm, I am not bothered either way, or the pages could just be blanked. Or deal with them if they arise. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Bulk unblocks can be done (see Mpaa's latest). Still, without deleting the existing User and/or User talk pages related to block notices, the job only seems half done imo. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Now doing all three actions.--Mpaa (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Thats great (wish it was done under a BOT flag if not just marked minor though). -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Done--Mpaa (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked Dexbot

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to the bot flooding RC, and our wish to review edits, and the bot operator not wishing to pause the block, I have temporarily blocked User:Dexbot. We have a day to review, or we may need to reapply the block. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Roseann1835

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Well, it looks like spam and it feels like spam (especially since the only account is on enws), but it has no link to any outside site. I'm not too sure about tagging this with {{sdelete}}, seeing as it might be a legitimate user's page (highly unlikely, but still). What do you think? —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 14:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, wait and see what happens. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I dunno, it seemed like a pretty innocuous vanity user page to me. Maybe there's some value in discouraging that behavior (especially if it were occurring on a large scale, which it isn't), but it comes at the cost of potentially discouraging someone from contributing. I don't think that cost-benefit analysis works out the same way it does with link spammers. Prosody (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem here is that there's a particular type of spam called NTSAMR or "nothing to say about me really", which sometimes has this sort of wording followed by an external link. Sometimes the link isn't there initially, but gets slipped in later. One of the clues is that the name in the user name doesn't match the name claimed in the content (which was the case this time). Sometimes the user page is created by a different name or an IP. I see that User:Trijnstel picked this one up and marked it for speedy. She's one of the Stewards and is very good at spotting this kind of quiet spam across all the projects. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Had no idea. I defer to your expertise. Is this kind of stuff documented on Wikipedia, or do you have to pick up on it over a long time spent admining? Prosody (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Try m:User:Mathonius/Reports/Nothing to say about me really. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 13:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, typical spambot shit and usually I just clean it up if it got through and someone else hasn't, globally lock the account, get the IP and block that globally for a period of time. You can always check what a steward has done via Special:CentralAuth. We don't have to delete those without url, though once you are there <shrug> usually we just do. You will see that we have my refined Special:AbuseFilter for that sort of spam too, in fact here was my first test bed, and admins will be able to see the range of behaviours we can catch. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

How to merge content along with history.

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen this done before but never had an instance where I was both a party-to and in need-of doing this.

User:Viewer2/templates/simpleLeader should have been moved to Template:SimpleLeader to preserve the development trials & errors but someone created the latter by copy & paste instead. Is there anyway now to move the "beta" from the User: space and merge it with the newcomer's contributions while preserving all the histories?

If I can do it, please tell me how; if not - having it done, period, is more important. I'll just have to go through all mistakes we already made then fixed the first time around. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Move the copy to be merged over the top (deleting existing), then undelete all components. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Many Thanks. And here I thought all this time doing such a "merge" would be more complex than just that.  :) George Orwell III (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Pulling them apart is the nightmare. Oh, and sometimes you may need to rollback to an earlier version if the last one in the history is not correct. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I picked up on that nuance too afterwards. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Special:Diff

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To note that this week there is a new history link feature in [[Special:Diff/nnnnnnn]] and it is somewhat comparitive to [[Special:PermanentLinks/nnnnnnn]]. It will be most useful for admins when quoting specific components like deletion decisions etc. It hits our shores on the rollout of wmf13 this Tuesday. Valid usages have been specified as:

  • [[Special:Diff/nnnnnnn]]] (diff of a revision with the previous one)
  • [[Special:Diff/nnnnnnn/prev]] (diff of a revision with the previous one as well)
  • [[Special:Diff/nnnnnnn/next]] (diff of a revision with the next one)
  • [[Special:Diff/nnnnnnn/cur]] (diff of a revision with the latest one of that page)
  • [[Special:Diff/nnnnnnn/yyyyyyy]] (diff between arbitrary two revisions)

— billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Here and functioning, examples …

Now one wants an easy diffonly option— billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser required, maybe?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

See Special:DeletedContributions/Ma.Erica Jane Baguisi, Special:DeletedContributions/Joundex Villasante (and also Special:Contribs/Joundex Villasante, and Special:DeletedContributions/Ivan Rhai Clarin; and also Ivan Clarin and Ma.Erica Jane Baguisi for more info. I've blocked the three users, and maybe a checkuser is required...? —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What were you looking to do with the result of the checkuser? The accounts would seem linked, and a block on accounts like this would usually be done with a block on the underlying IPs, which gives us a day of blockinig. What more are you after? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, nothing else actually; sorry about that. —Clockery Fairfeld [t·c] 12:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
No need to be sorry, it is part of the role to ask. Checkuser is a tool to be used with a purpose in mind, usually prevention of future aspects. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reinstating the PSM filter

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If it doesn't create additional workload, would it be possible to reinstate the PSM filter which helped me track edits? Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Re-activated. If you find additional Users with contributions that you consider trustworthy, just drop another note here listing those can be excluded from tagging. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks.— Ineuw talk 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Gadgetize a magicword?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know if it is possible to "load" a magic-word ( {{noexternallanglinks}} ) on every page I view via a Gadget or something? -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean one of these at mw:Help:Magic_words, or are you talking specifically about one of the ⧼&hellip;⧽ variations? Can you elucidate further on what you are looking to do? Any particular namespace, any particular place? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
??
The magicword is ( {{noexternallanglinks}} ). It retards the generation of interlinks under Wikidata on any page where such links exist - thats why its called no external lang[uage] links]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not at all clear this is what you want (it is a truly brutal solution if it is.) Adding:
h2.wb-sitelinks-heading,
table.wb-sitelinks { display:none; }

—to your Special:mypage/common.css causes wikidata to throw away all of the interlinks (after wasting the effort of calculating them.) AuFCL (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but that defeats the point. Still seeking a way to apply a MagicWord to every page I visit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Castaño Mallorca, Oliver

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Please see Special:Contributions/Castaño_Mallorca,_Oliver. As far as I can tell he is self-publishing auto-translations of his own work. I've had a go at an explanation of WWI using Google translate. Can someone with better Spanish than mine please have a look? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I second that request! User: is leaving several literary droppings that do not belong in our yard. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A couple of choices, chose someone from the list who has identified their es skills, or pop over to esWS and ask one of their admins for assistance, if that, I would suggest @LadyInGrey:. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears that user has stopped creating new works, last edit was March 6, 2014. Looking through the comments, posted to and by the user; all the works seem to have been created in good faith with language issues causing some difficulty in understanding WS:WWI. I have edited User:Castaño_Mallorca,_Oliver to remove links to out of scope works and the author template that incorrectly categorized the page. Should the user again start uploading out of scope works, I think a short term block would be appropriate. Historical we make reasonable efforts to communicate across language barriers, but ultimately the responsibility for understanding the rights and responsibilities of a being a contributor to the site fall on the contributor. Jeepday (talk) 12:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Logging simultaneously in on two browsers.

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I can often respond and resolve users' browser text display issues, if I log in on two browsers simultaneously. But, don't know the consequences and don't want to cause a problem to my account or the system. To avoid this, can I log in simultaneously as User:Ineuw on one, and as User:IneuwPublic on another browser? The IP address and the MAC address would be the same in most cases. — Ineuw talk 07:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


Of course. I have logged in with two browsers here for many (6 or 7) years. I started when upgrades of either browser came along. It does no harm. Sometimes, if you can see the text, or image, you don't need to log in to do what is needed to get the work done. I have logged in with the same name or with two names. I have never had any complaints about it as long as there is no abuse. I log in with two browsers rarely now. I usually just look at my images on Commons without logging in and use the names I see with my 2nd browser to put them into the book I am working on. I am aware that there are other ways of doing this but it's just a long-term habit. In any case it does no harm but then I am using one computer as opposed to a MAC and any other computer. Remember, computers themselves are also numbered and named. —Maury (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no restriction on number of logins, nor simultaneous logins. With regard to using alternative account, it is about being overt, and not undertaking the deceptive practices of proofreading a work twice, nor influencing a conversation, especially between your own persona. Nothing rocket science. So whichever is possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I've done this a couple of times when I wanted to see what IE6 was doing with some pages. In the end it's no different to having multiple tabs open that are all logged in. I found, though, that logging out of one browser caused the other login to terminate as well. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. This is what I needed to know. At least I could try to help people with combinations between Firefox and Comodo Dragon,/Chromium and Safari.— Ineuw talk 02:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Special:MassMessage

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a reminder to admins that we now have the local-only equivalent of the message bot available to us, via Special:MassMessage. Do you think that we should put some light rules around its use? I was thinking of something along the lines of

  1. For user "subscribed" messages then the admin who manages the list/message can send without impediment for the purpose of the subscription.
  2. For broader/targeted use where we decide to utilise to push a message, that it needs to have been brought here, and broached that it will occur, and an opportunity for feedback prior to occurring.

Just thoughts. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If not familiar with the tool you can learn more about it at w:Wikipedia:Mass message senders. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Messages for editors without user pages?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How can I leave a message to User:Ryokuhi who has no user or discussion page? — Ineuw talk 08:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest going right ahead and creating their talk page (might as well {{welcome}} them whilst you are at it?) Alternatively they appear to have (left) their email options open, so try: Special:EmailUser/Ryokuhi? AuFCL (talk) 09:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks AuFCL.— Ineuw talk 14:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Index:Emma (Volume 3).djvu

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please delete Index:Emma (Volume 3).djvu, I've just realized that it's a duplicate of Index:Austen - Emma, vol. III, 1816.djvu. Lugusto 23:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted these two pages.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Retirement

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It looks like one of our admins just retired. I am not aware of anything going on at the site or with the individual personally. (not mentioning names, but it should be obvious to to most who are watching) Do we need to reach out to offer support for a personal crises or has something already been addressed by someone who is closer to the admin then I am? I am not looking for details, just checking if we need to check. Jeepday (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who you refer to but I do think we should reach out if only with a thank you for all of your work regardless if it is an administrator or an editor that has been here and working. That administrator may come back and work on editing but for sure we all have feelings. I think people who love books are very sensitive regardless whether they show it or not. —Maury (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Using discussion pages in the Page: namespace

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would there be a problem for the administration, if I use the discussion page of a page for explaining the formatting of objects of that page? — Ineuw talk 19:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a wiki, go ahead. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.— Ineuw talk 19:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cite news

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can I have some help please with Template:Cite news ?

I'd like to make it more like w:Template:Cite news at English Wikipedia, with more fields possible for work, author, first, last, etc.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. The entire family of citation templates has been ported over to a LUA script Module: scheme on Wikipedia. Not too many folks are that LUA-fluent (as far as I can tell) on WS so I think you'd be better off asking one of the template hawks familiar with that scheme on Wikipedia to set up the same here instead.
At the same time, I'm not even sure that type citation usage is appropriate for WS in the first place. Anyone? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I can ask other experts to help out, if that's what the community deems appropriate, I just need to know who to ask? -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Appropriate or not aside (I doubt there is any issue with matching WP but I've been wrong before) - we just don't seem to have many regular contributors who are also fluent with the Lua scripting approach to templates. As a result, posting your request only here might not get addressed anytime soon thanks to that reality.
I suppose whoever it was that converted the citation family of templates to use Lua scripting on Wikipedia would be the logical person to seek out. If they are willing to invest some of their free time here on WS to mirror the Wikipedia citation scheme is another matter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Copying common.js of one user to another

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I need to copy the contents of my common.js to User:Gumr51's common.js, which currently doesn't exist. The purpose is for him to have the "User" selection available in the CharInsert list. Many thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 19:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. I've made an exact copy, but note that there is a warning of a stray semi-colon in line 162. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It will help Gumr51 a lot. I also removed the semicolon from line 162, and will encourage him to correct his copy.— Ineuw talk 06:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Looking to setup multi-maintainer bot at Tools

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am looking to set up a multi-maintainer bot at tool.wmflabs.org (WMF's tools space), and I am interested if there are others interested being involved in the maintenance [Users would need an account at Labs.]. I am thinking that if we set it up right, we can have the bot running the regular tasks that the community needs regularly managed operating through this bot, so not tied to individuals who may be busy, or may depart, leaving us on the outside. The sort of tasks that I am thinking of are some old, and some new, eg.

  • (new) an archiving process (akin to MiszaBot at other sites)
  • reinvigorating the casual patrolling that used to be done by JVbot

These are already set within Manual:Pywikibot, and there are others there that we can set to run. I would see that all tasks would be put through the community's normal approval processes, and probably more likely to have a thorough approval process with these being ongoing tasks. If people see that it is a good idea, we will need to look to a name for the account (first boring thoughts ... WikisourceMMBot, WikisourceBot, EnWikisourceBot). I had thought about a xWS bot, then pulled back as it would be possible to get to that later if it was seen to be of value, and as that would most likely have xWS operators, we would want to have tasks that we are more comfortable sharing. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To learn a bit more about tools, there is information at labsconsole:Nova Resource:Tools — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I am contributing at pywikibot, so I can help on that side. I have no account on tool.wmflabs.org, if needed I can apply for one.--Mpaa (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I created Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0.

Please feel free to modify it with formatting adjustments, etc., as you wish.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: needs to be added to Help:Copyright tags. Also would be worth starting the general conversation at WS:S on whether that should be our new default. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Marking patrolled pages?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've checked through every recent page on the "PSM watch", most marked with patrolling required, but I don't know how to mark them (Page namespace) patrolled. Can someone please advise? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 05:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a "[Mark as patrolled]" link on the diff page. Hesperian 05:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping the ignorant.— Ineuw talk 06:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: If there is a string of edits to a page, you will also see a [Mark as patrolled] for the Page: ns page, under the image (bottom right). I think that something similar applies in the main ns, however, I rarely see a string of edits from non-patrolled these days to easily confirm that. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. In this case there was no mark to which I was used to. That's why I asked.— Ineuw talk 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled request

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, as suggested in this link, I wish to request Autopatrolled rights for myself. Thanks a lot! --3BRBS (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Super! glad you want to be a trusted user who regularly creates pages and has demonstrated they are familiar with Wikisource's policies and guidelines You might start by reading Beginner's guide to Wikisource then if you could just make a few hundred contributions to the site, you will have the Autopatrolled rights in no time. Jeepday (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Jeepday, thanks for your advice, but I mostly made my contributions in Spanish:. It seems there is no place in the Spanish Wikisource to request this!--3BRBS (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Autopatroller is per-language edition, not universal across Wikisources. You might try asking one of the active admins on Spanish Wikisource if you want it there. Prosody (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Mh, Prosody, thanks for your answer, but I already asked one of the administrators, her reply was: "I would gladly do it, but in Wikisource it seems that it doens't exist". I have only two administrators left to ask :/ --3BRBS (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing at the English Wikisource is going to have an impact at Spanish Wikisource. As you can see at the Global account manager you have auto patrol at es.wikipedia.org but not at en.wikipedia.org, if they don’t have a manual change over to auto patrol at es.wikisource.org, presumably it is automatic after some number of edits. Currently you have 657, you might ask when it would be granted than you will have a target to aim for. Jeepday (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Jeepday, Indeed, and thanks for taking the time to reply. It seems that the only bureocrat in es.wikisource.org is the user that told me that it seems that the option doesn't exist". Let me ask her about this automatic granting. Thanks!--3BRBS (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it seems it is the entire Autopatrollers group itself that doesn't exist - not just the option to somehow include/exclude Users to/from it.
If the group existed on es.WS, it would be automatically listed on this Special page via API(?) like it does for en.WS on Special:ListGroupRights. In light of the apparent lack of an Autopatrollers group on es.WS, I doubt there is anything like an automatic "trigger" routine setup there either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Patrolling is a feature that can be enabled or disabled on a site-wide basis in the LocalSettings.php file ($wgUseRCPatrol = false). Many of the smaller Wikimedia sites do not have it enabled. Hesperian 02:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@3BRBS: To have autopatrolled, your community needs to discuss it, and reach a consensus that you want it. From there a bugzilla: request should be filed under site requests, and the techheads will get to it. We went through the process with the discussion in WS:S it will be in the archives with the resulting request at bugzilla:18307. You can find configurations at http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for groupOverrides. So start that discussion locally and some of us can provide assistance once the discussion is concluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional. Apart from the addition of the right, you should also discuss who can assign and remove it. We opted to have that implemented at the administrator level. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi billinghuurst, I'll bring this helpfull information to the Spanish Wikisource, to see what can be done there. It seems that there is no inconvenient on granting the autopatrolled status (I asume), so it's more like a tecnical issue :)--3BRBS (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait, woah, if patrolling isn't set up on Spanish Wikisource then there's no point in having autopatrolled status there, it wouldn't do anything. Autopatrolled status just makes all your edits marked as patrolled automatically, nothing else. Prosody (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It is okay, they have RCPatrol set to true (init file and search for wgUseRCPatrol), so they have patrollable edits, and their patrol log shows evidence of admins patrolling. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When Moving Pages

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I was going through some soft redirects to delete, and I have noticed an issue being overlooked by several administrators so I think it better to leave a note here rather than go around to all the individual user talk pages. It seems to me that the best practice when moving a page would be to use the the what links here feature to find and correct all of the links to the moving page. Especially when you think your move creates an unneeded redirect and you decide to place the the dated soft redirect template on it the page. If you are doing using the soft redirect template, you should be expecting the page to be deleted in two months and any links to be completely broken at that time. While the soft redirect template is basically a road sign to direct any external websites to fix links, we still have to remember to fix the internal ones as well. I am fixing these before I delete, but in the meantime links have been broken for 16 months. Please note that I am working some old categories, so if this has already been somewhat recently addressed please ignore!BirgitteSB 03:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At one point User:TalBot was dealing with all the parts of this process on a regular basis, including adjusting any internal links that had been missed. However, its owner Grafzahl hasn't been around for quite some time and so the task has fallen into abeyance. If someone is able and willing to take over Talbot's function, then there won't be a need to do the link adjustments or the deletions manually for the outstanding months. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I knew Talbot used to do the deleting, but I did't know that the check before deletion was being relied upon as the primary prompt to repair links. I don't think I understood that there was a script written for repairing links. I still hold that best practice would be to immediately repair broken links created by the move. Even if you strongly want to have the link repair done by bots, there is no need to wait two months to run the repair script.BirgitteSB 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean that we shouldn't repair the links at the time of moving a page, rather that if any got missed accidently, then TalBot could look after them as a part of the mop-up. What I was really hoping we could avoid, is spending time (and flooding RC) with manual deletions. However, it seems I'm too late with this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not concerned with the irregular broken link being over-looked. I found that links were left broken far more often than not. The rest of it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. BirgitteSB 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the next batch of soft redirect maintenance was scheduled for tomorrow. However, it appears Category:Soft redirects/February 2013 is already gone. I left a message for User:Kathleen.wright5, see User talk:Kathleen.wright5#Soft_redirects.--GrafZahl (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are replying to here.BirgitteSB 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is: TalBot is active with soft redirect maintenance again, just not in the current instance, for that has already been handled by you and Kathleen. Sorry for being unclear. Thinking about it, I should have placed a notice of new activity on this page, too. Sorry.
As for early link repair, feel free to do it or not to do it, TalBot surely doesn't mind ;)
I think it does make sense not to do it if you have a lot of better stuff to do and want to leave the grunt work to the bot… except of course that I'm active again for only three weeks now, and then only on some weekends, and there's a huge backlog. But slowly, eventually, we should get back to normal again.
--GrafZahl (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing PieterJanR status to autopatroller

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Because this is a new area for me, I decided not to make the change myself, but recommend that User:PieterJanR be given autopatroller status by another admin. He's been on Wikisource since February 2013, and contributed nearly 400 edits. While his contribution is exclusively focused on PSM, (another reason for me just to recommend to deflect assumed bias :-) ), he seems to know what he is doing. ty.— Ineuw talk 04:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think that he deserves the right, then make the change Special:UserRights/PieterJanR. You were promoted to be an admin by the community based on our belief that you have ability to make the judgment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I second that! Btw, I've already done the userrights change; next time I'll leave it to you. ;-) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur, but it is always ok, to ask if you don’t feel comfortable with something. Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the confidence.— Ineuw talk 17:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Local Hebrew Charinsert gadget error

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I found a minor issue with the Hebrew Charinsert in which five characters were out of order. Reported the issue to Bugzilla as Bug 66348. The gist of it is that it's a local problem, originally copied from en.Wikipedia. I can easily correct the problem here, but don't know where the .js page is. Or, ask someone in the know to copy it from English Wikipedia, where it was already corrected. — Ineuw talk 20:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

All .js & .css files reside in the MediaWiki namespace for future reference. In this case the specific file is [:MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js] (I've already matched what WP has).
These [character] sets were meant to be locally reviewed and revised as needed by those fluent/familiar enough to be considered experts - not just blindly copied from other projects. That invitation is still open to anyone who is willing to invest the time btw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The character order is fixed. Please understand that I mentioned Wikipedia only because Amir E. Aharoni has corrected it there this morning. Otherwise, I would have gladly done it myself. — Ineuw talk 23:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No understood that @Ineuw: - my point was more about having both completness as well as correctness whenever possible. If that is the entire Hebrew language's character set; so be it (it seem kind of "short" to me however).
I also should have mentioned before you can find the associated files for Gadgets thru Special:Gadgets and the definition(s) of "active" gadgets' settings thru [:MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional links. As for the the Hebrew alphabet, it is the complete set. — Ineuw talk 07:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

... no longer seem to be working as before. No matter which of the three I select (Random work, Random author or Random transcription), they all seem to ignore the designated namespace assigned to each and now provide random results across all(?) the namespaces. Can others verify this behavior? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I just got the Page: namespace for all three. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The other Random page link that I know of (WS:PotM) gives a 404 error now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I just tweaked the random validation string, hopefully that 404 error is now fixed. Still, that is unrelated to the sidebar-3 issue as they are "built-in", Special: namespace induced; not external tools, scripts or add-ons.
Anyone else see the same with those 3? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I must have tried things out just after POTM was fixed (I confirm working now.) I also confirm the three sidebar links return random pages without regard to namespaces (i.e. exactly per original complaint.) AuFCL (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I don't think it is just en.WS anymore - not working on MediaWiki.org either. The single Bugzilla that I could find seems related, although its a couple of months old now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Special:Randomrootpage and Special:Random are different. I think that Random is replicating the built-in API call mw:API:Random so that we have

so it would seem that the implicit look up function that used to exist with the forward slash and canonical namespace component seem broken. I have logged to bugzilla:66477 and the pages for reference are mw:Help:Random page and mw:Manual:Random page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure about that 'canonical namespace associations being broken'; Special:Random/file seems to work everytime I've ticked on it for example so the problem seems limited to some associations but not all of them (or the problem lies elsewhere altogether - yet the API using "file" for the namespace also fails while at the same time the interlink [seems to] work).
Fwiw... I saw something in the bugzilla about a link(?) pointing incorrectly or needed updating. If you were looking for SpecialRandompage.php or SpecialRandomredirect.php, they reside in the . . ./includes/specials sub-folder of mediawiki/core[.git]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Please forgive me for being a total pedant, but according to my reading of the API (search for "list=random") the correct syntax demands rnnamespace be the numeric namespace-id, so this might work better //en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=random&rnlimit=1&rnnamespace=6? So far it hasn't failed to toss out File: references for me. AuFCL (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So Billinghurst's previous API work/fail associations (above) proves little in the way of any "broken canonical associations" theory since only a numeric input for namespace was proper in the first place [edited mine]. So its still unclear why Special:Random/file seems to work (yes?) while Special:Random/author does not. Only difference between the two is File: is not set to allow sub-pages (just like Special:Random/category and Special:Random/mediawiki do not allow sub-pages). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably I have no idea if the "sub-pages" allowed theory is even relevant; but FWIW I confirm only Special:Random/file out of the above set seems to work as expected for me. All of ../author, ../category, ../mediawiki throw up pages outside of the requested namespace for me. AuFCL (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for confirming - my results are exactly the same. And you just proved 'sub-page settings' plays no role in any of this via MediaWiki & Category test results. Nevertheless, it was the obvious difference between most of our namespaces ( see here ) and had to be vetted either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I don't know if this is helping but I tried a little experimentation on WikiPedia for contrast. Over there, Special:Random/file (occasionally) throws up User_talk: pages for me (but mainly File: space.) One more fact(oid)? AuFCL (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Random page is designed to work on content namespaces (read the above linked pages) , and for us the wgContentNamespaces is
'default' => array( NS_MAIN )
…
+enwikisource' => array( 102, 104, 106, 114 ) (as per api; look for content annotations)
accordingly main, Author, Page, Index, Translation, which renders the remainder of your argument irrelevant. That you are seeing quirky behaviour outside of scope, should be considered other quirky behaviour. At enWP, they have only one content ns, so the tool should be working within their more limited ns scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Content= or otherwise, it was working all-around up until a couple of weeks ago max. Same story with the Manual: & Extension: namespaces (both content= ) on mediwiki.org for example
... both fail within 2 or 3 tries if not right away.
Same story with mw:Extension:Randomrootpage but worse. Not only does Special:RandomRootpage no longer obey targeted namespaces anymore (Special:RandomRootpage/Author, Special:RandomRootpage/Main) but it can't even limit itself not to return sub-pages within whatever namespace it decides to "jump" to.
Plus RandomRedirect still behaves as before ( Special:RandomRedirect/Main | Special:RandomRedirect/Author | Special:RandomRedirect/Portal ). Altogether, if it's not recent-jQuery-update related then I can't begin to guess where or what to narrow the issue down to. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added Krinkle to the bug as he is recent informer of the jquery narrative and may be able to give some authoritative guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bawolff: and @Reedy: have both active on this bug (thanks!) and it is set to roll out with the release on Tues 1 July (wmf11). Check deployments closer to the date for the planned time. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
 fwiw... it seems like they fixed the Random special-extension (was related to recent Cirrus Search changes) but it didn't cascade down to mw:Extension:Randomrootpage. I left a note at the same discussion dealing with plain old Random on Wikipedia's Village Pump (technical) page and figured best to mention it here too in hopes of moving things along. Please advise as needed. Thnx. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

One is an extension, and one is core, there may just be different release dates. The bugzilla said a release for 1 July, so just need to watch next week's release. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a disclosure policy

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With WMFs updated terms of use, I see that we should be taking up the option to exclude ourselves from a part, and have put forward a proposal to that extent at WS:S#RFC: Disclosure policy aka Special:Diff/4932804 — billinghurst sDrewth 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Purpose unblock of Crum375

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Crum375 on enwikisource is an SUL account of Special:CentralAuth/Crum375, so probably admin blocked the wrong user.--GZWDer (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@BirgitteSB: This is one of your blocks from 2010. I know nothing to comment either way. I do see that the person is a sysop at enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New script to assist moves from Commons

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Occasionally one of the files that we place/use at Commons is found to be outside of hosting requirements/scope of Commons, so they wish to delete it (deletions usually noted in edits by CommonsDelinker). This has been problematic for us where the file can legitimately be hosted here. There is a now a tool available to Commons admins that can assist in their moving the file to the 'using' wiki, prior to deletion. So if anyone notices a used file being deleted at Commons that could be kept within our copyright restrictions, then please ask the deleting administrator to resurrect the file, and to move it to enWS before again deleting that work. If you fail with that Commons admin, then please ask one of the local denizens with admins rights at Commons (listed below), or myself to do so.

For Commons admins (@EVula, @Hesperian, @Jusjih, @Yann:), if this is of interest the add-on created by Magnus is an OAuth application that is added to your common.js file at Commons, the text to be added is 

importScript('MediaWiki:ExCommons.js') ;

so when you start the deletion you will see towards the top of the deletion screen that you have the option to push the file prior to deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Jump up to:" labels for references — culled

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Either I have had my brain on complete holiday, or we have recently had labels on refs in references changed within the global system, or monobook has something weird happening … anyway with all book references I have been seeing each reference listing prefixed with the text "Jump up to:". I have culled that through editing [MediaWiki:Cite references link accessibility label] and redirect [MediaWiki:Cite references link many accessibility label] to the other file for consistency. If that is deemed wrong, please continue this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Easiest would be pointing to an example... I restored the one "Jump up" message just to see what you were talking about and I can't seem to find any use or appearance of the message in normal ref tag uses. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Not showing today, it was showing every reference prepended with "Jump up to:" <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Got one Page:My Life in Two Hemispheres, volume 2.djvu/91 — billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I am not sure why I have to demonstrate this, or undoing the edit just for a peek. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Just being proactive instead of reactive - plus we don't typically change site wide settings without verifying a thing or two along the way first. I for example can't reproduce either message under both monobook & vector in this case. The messages don't seem to be new additions to the MediaWikia message bundle as far as I can tell either so it's likely something else recent triggering them to come thru.
Please blank them both if you can't deal with seeing them until the next cycle if you must this time - but I'd much rather see if others expierence the same and troubleshoot from there personally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I have spoken to Hoo about it, and he will have a look. It may be a Firefox thing along with something in the last release, it may be more. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine until I get some more free time to look into this specifically. I will blank them both - redirects in that MediaWiki namespace are not optimal since its not setup to behave as a normal namespace as you seem to believe. The default is always there ([MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_many_accessibility_label/qqx]), lying 'in wait' even when overriden so redirecting stuff just bloats the number of jumps needed to reach a message or label - even a blank one. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Fatal error on file move

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Need input for critical work

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks,

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

Run-up discussions leading to current status

Compendium III: Copyright Office Practices will [bite my tongue] "soon" be a reality and - hopefully - will resolve the many outstanding copyright questions we have. See the mock-up of the new site here...

UPDATE: Copyright Office Announces Beta Revision of Compendium of Practices
The Compendium III of Copyright Office Practices is released in beta form on July 31, 2014. The new Compendium III contains the body of Office practices and procedures.


All the links seem to be active but the true content is not up yet. The only worthwhile active link (that I could find) was to the 10-page Preface .pdf which seems to be well past the "initial draft" stage. It's uploaded and Index'd here...

  • Index:Comp3-pre-0415.pdf
    Correction - more Chapters have been added (again, only as .pdfs) since my last run-through of the site earlier today (Chapters 400, 1200, 1600 & 1700 afaict).

Question now is how to proceed and the reason I bring this to your attention here and now. Please look the site and the Preface over and start this "eventual" project off right. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you are asking. It seems like you are asking something about how to format the work in Wikisource when it becomes available, but I doubt that is something you would have an issue with, so I am lost. I know we have a discussion at Possible copyright violations, pending this work. Jeepday (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - I don't know how I missed this.
My point is to have a discussion on how best to host this ahead of starting it so that all projects can call upon & benefit from it while allowing en.WS some degree of ease in maintaining it both at the same time.
Without actually "seeing" what is now called a beta release (update added above) slated for July 31, uploading & transcribing a single PDF/DjVu containing the entire body of work seems like the wrong way to go if we want to be able to always host latest revision(s) in the mainspace. Uploading each section or chapter seperately and transcribing them seperately seems to make more sense in this case - well that is what my "gut" is telling me at the moment that is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Index namespace input-form acting weird

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

... or is it just me?

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

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

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

The only filled-in fields, when creating new Index pages, I've been getting for the past few weeks is the Type and Progress fields. I just assumed it was because of the failure of the metadata autoload gadget, so didn't pursue it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC) P.S. The Footer field hasn't been automatically populated for the last few (?3) years.
Thanks BWC; your point about the footer triggered my memory.
And damn if I don't always forget about the wacky way that form is setup to begin with - it partially depends on the ProofreadPage extension in conjunction with MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config locally (among one or two others also in the mw namespace). I managed to rectify Nos. 2, 3 & 4 without too much thought but damn if I still can't get bullet No.1 to properly detect the source file type automatically.
The thing with the gadget importing [meta]data seems unrelated to these "quirks" but some of that might start working again too (still needs a review and refresh imho). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Debt relief spammer

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Third party User name moves

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

A request for rights for my public persona

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

The wind blows on Wikimedia Commons

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

It began with this file commons:File:Memoirs_of_a_Trait_in_the_Character_of_George_III.djvu and another one like it. I removed the Google claim but some users, not Admins, as far as I know keep adding back the deletion tag. Also see the discussion page. — Ineuw talk 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Ahh... now I get it. Thanks.
First off - the reason the deletion tag was added back is because previous copies of the file with the Google disclaimer page in place still exist in the "archives" when you 'upload' a new version of a file over an existing one. It is those previous uploads that are causing some folks angst now. For someone like me who is entering the discussion late, it's hard to follow the logic being applied to say the least. I guess this opens the question 'is it better to just upload the disclaimer-less file with an "improved" yet somewhat similar name as the File: in question rather than trying to replacing it?'. We're already going to have to do some bulk moves & transclusion range adjustments thanks to 1 less page anyway so why not seem to appease the beast by speeding the deletion along re: the old file is now redundant to the new file. Something to think about....
Unfortunately, the point on removal itself was a long time coming and kind of hard to argue with (technically; not practically that is). Personally, I've always tried to make removal of the disclaimer page part of my 'good practices' but that takes the extra time & effort to manually download, modify then upload every instance. What would be sweet is if there was some way (toolLabs? oAuth?) to automate the removal & replacement of the disclaimer page on Commons - preserving the structure(s) already in place here on Wikisource in the process (e.g. bulk moves no longer required). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that you and I (learned from the master and that's being you), not to upload with the Google copyright notice. But, what or how are we going to notify the rest of the editors. These issues are after the the fact. A notice in our help files where IA uploads are mentioned. would help. I only found out about it from the post on the Scriptorium/Help. As of recently, I remove the Google notice and insert a blank djvu page as the 2nd page after the cover. This way, everything is aligned. — Ineuw talk 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record since references are made to users on Commons in the plural. Only one user kept adding back the deletion tag. I have not requested the deletion of any of the files and my intention was to soften the bite of that user. Edaen (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
If you are addressing me User:Ineuw, my discussion was with Stefan4 on Commons. He does have a point that the notices themselves are Google copyright. In any case, I compiled a list of all .djvu files with Google front page notices and posted them on this page. I began removing them, there are only 21 books in all languages. — Ineuw talk 08:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: don't taunt them to delete, as they will, and that is just a PITA. We deal with bullshit arguments as bullshit. We don't want a load of deletionists taking over at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Announcement: Tracking categories for images with attribution problems

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
“ Starting this Tuesday (on Commons) or Thursday (all other wikis), files which do not have machine-parseable author, source, license or description will be automatically added to tracking categories (one category for each). The name of the categories will be determined by the following messages:

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

Hello folks. Pardon if you've already seen/are aware of this but evidently the creation of these categories caused a bit of a stir on Commons: with this discussion. The upshot if you'd prefer not to read there is that the driver for these changes appears to be MediaViewer considerations, which probably means they are of near-to-zero interest on the WikiSources… (I am in all likelihood vastly over-simplifying?)
Oh, and might be worth noting the tidbit that setting a given category name to "-" (presumably in the MediaWiki control reference) disables it. I guess you probably already knew that, too? AuFCL (talk) 10:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Curation is curation. Good practice is good practice. Knowledge and understanding are useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I was trying hard not to outright suggest "turning this stuff off," merely passing on (what was to me at least) new information about the possibility; should it prove useful. However, I still entertain the private belief that adding a tracking category analogous to "My dog does not understand the CSS on this page" would not necessarily add value. 'Nuff said? I'll get back in the box. AuFCL (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent attacks on editors

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

OTRS

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

I would much prefer if @Rjd0060, @Tiptoety: could respond as they administrate OTRS. Though as some pointers, there are two separate components, 1) Answering questions about Wikisource, and 2) Addressing English language permissions. See m:OTRS and c:Commons:OTRS for fuller information, and hopefully we can get some context relative information provided. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have requested that my OTRS access be removed. Jeepday (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

utilising global spam filters

Latest comment: 9 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion
Tracked in PhabricatorTask T78496Resolved

The following discussion is closed:

closed as consensus reached for being added to global abuse filters — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

WMF has had available filters that the stewards alone are able to apply 'globally' from meta. Selected wikis and small wikis have been utilising the system for a while, and in the past couple of weeks, the medium wikis have been added to mix. We are able to be added into the configuration to have these filters apply if we so wish (by consensus). The basic scenario is stewards can convert a local meta filter into a filter that can be applied xwiki to configured wikis, all hits are logged locally and centrally. The filters are generally set softer, though after extensive testing and continued spam they can be given a little more oomph. FWIW numbers of the filters that we have locally are replicas of what I have created at meta. AsI have a sort of vested interest that is as hard as I am going to push, though happy to answer questions if my explanation is considered too concise. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

proposed close date: 13 December 2014
Still waiting though the change has been committed, there has been some embargo in place, so I will wait until this coming week to start bashing ears. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, seems like having a "patch" committed is rarely the problem (err... if one can navigate an upload, its 'committed' afaict). Committed is not the same as reviewed & merged however.
The problem is everybody with any accrued status is sooooo far up inside VisualEditor's or Wikidata's development-ass of late that they just don't 'come around' much to sign-off on the minor stuff like this. And a good part of those fixes lingering for weeks on end are merely one line or one word amendments like this one is. It makes no sense to me.
Even people with basic access would be a welcomed addition at this point -- constantly bumping up bits of the backlog seems to be the only sane way to keep us wee wikis on the radar. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Went operational today (7.55 UTC?), though I am still waiting to see something worthy(?) hit the corresponding filter. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just went carefully through what I've dealt with previously and do not any difference from before. Checked the Special Versions page just in case something would reflect the new condition there; nada. I'd give it another day, maybe two? I'm not sure what to look at any rate. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The gerrit change is one that includes the wiki to on/true in the configuration. Configs are here, and search for "globalabusefilters". It all looks fine, just watching for a candidate edit and would expect that our local filters and the global filters will both log, and which point I will inactivate what I know are duplicated locally. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

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

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

Yes, this has been up and running within 24 hours of that update.
I have updated the global filters 100-103 to eradicate false positives like that in the main namespace. Noting that I am working from the meta abuse log at this point. I thought that you could see the global filters that had a hit, is that not the case? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@George Orwell III: You don't get an active link to the global filter and the ability to see it? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Plus, I don't understand the commentary about {{header2}}. Can you provide some pointers or extrapolate the commentary. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit revisions tagged by header 2 & hedr2 filters running at the time before we BOT'd every single work (including those tagged in the interim) to Header, making the continued listing of these articles & their affected reivision(s) on Special:Tags a nice bit of archival trivia and not much else.
I had thought I read somewhere that it would be possible / is possible to remove such listings if they were less than 100 of them or maybe 500? ... I can't find it in my cache either. I'll post back w/ a pointer if and when it turns up again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh Special:Tags (I forget about that page), I think that they are a permanent fixture. Like cannot abuse filter counts, filters, etc. Anachronistic, but there you are. Phabricator is about the only place that would promote a change. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
There is Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/abusefilter-helper, though that is a bit of overkill for this need. Maybe we need to see if we can get something similar for Meta, and let meta admins work it out.
One less thing to access and/or the tying up of 'ancient loose ends' is not all that important at the moment. If you have the time, look into it and see if its worth pursuing -given the effort that will probably be required of you. I can manage w/o the drama that usually comes with stuff like that anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Ah, already noted. GMTA. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
GMTA? So you were also thinking -- specifically -- what type of bit(?) carries the "managechangetags" right which allows the User to add/change/delete change tags from the database? I don't see anything "new" under my list (autopatroller, abuse filter editor, sysop, etc.). I can't seem to find anything about this "new" right documented either; can you please look into that w/ your far more connected contacts than anyone else I can think of around here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Scratch all that in my last just above (though documentation would still be helpful). I found that there is a new column on Special:Tags that handles the promised deletes &/or changes (as long as the tagging scheme is not in effect). I was able to ax the header2/hedr2 revisions in 2 easy steps. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archives/2014&oldid=14663533"