Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2019

Request for unprotection of Is There a Santa Claus?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Please unprotect Is There a Santa Claus?, a versions page. This page had been a text page before it was moved at 01:43, 13 June 2011 to Is There a Santa Claus? (New York Sun), which has been protected for integrity since 09:30, 23 March 2007. ‎Is There a Santa Claus? should be unprotected since it has been changed to versions page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with this logic, so ✅. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA
Hey could someone please block Bill Dance 22 without TPA, he's the w:en:WP:LTA/DENVER perp. --IanDBeacon (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * user is now globally locked. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sock-puppet
The user Zesharn Mahmood [who has been disruptively editing] is most likely a sockpuppet of the globally blocked accountZeshan Mahmood known for disruptive pro-Pakistan editing. Please see if this can dealt with. You might also want to look at the Commons SPA case. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The edits were all appropriately dealt with at the time. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion / block request
If an admin could delete (and protect) my user talk page and block the IP who created it (Special:Contributions/2605:3E80:D00:10:0:0:0:E), it'd be appreciated. I don't edit here, so if you can make it so my user pages can only be edited by confirmed users, that would be best. Only (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The protection request is somewhat unorthodox, but in the circumstances, ✅. I'll leave the blocking question for someone more familiar with IPv6 ranges. BethNaught (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the deletion/protection. I get random "enemies" who leave these harassing comments at my user talk pages throughout the Wikimedia projects on projects I never edit, so it's better if they're protected so those users can't create those pages.  Only (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Abuse filter user page de-redlinked
Prompted by the discussion at User talk:Mpaa#Question about User:Abuse filter I've gone ahead and created it based on the equivalent Wikidata page. Background on the account (which may have slipped under the radar for many) can be found in Tech News: 2019-02. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

LTA
Pages: WP:AN, Rfpp, AIV

WP:LTA: Special:Contributions/92.40.249.0/24

just blocked the LTA for this. The user also created some weird pages that seem to mirror random internal Wikipedia discussions. Some of those project discussions are ongoing, so I don't know if we should notify them there. Either way, the pages should eventually be deleted after review. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted all three as out of scope for us. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't page blanking
Does anyone know why this edit was incorrectly flagged as "page blanking"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to try and answer that, but I do not have the current user rights to view private filters (nor probably should I). could you take a look at Special:AbuseFilter/9, please? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Only "abuse filter editors" can view this; i.e. about four active editors. Hesperian 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of this, and that's why I pinged Billinghurst. My suspicion is that this issue may have occurred on another wiki as well as ours, and he would be the one best suited for that I'd reckon.


 * If there was an edit filter helper right like on some other wikis, I'd probably would be interested in having it. That's not the case, and I don't feel I am established enough to even consider requesting the abuse filter right. Small note: I'm pretty sure admins can view as well. At least they can on enwiki. Every project is different, so idk... &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins can self-include themselves in the group "abuse filter editor". — Hrishikes (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I wasn't totally off base then. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The edit filter, for some reason, is calculating old and new page size as  for all edits. The abuse filter does not tag edits by editors with sufficiently many edits; if it did, the abuse filter would be tagging every single edit on this site :S —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Edit: not all edits. Not sure why, but some diffs show  and   as blank, which would explain the calculation of   and the subsequent flagging as page blanking. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Current hypothesis: issue affects all edits in Page namespace. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I've posted at T219514 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And they've fixed it! ProofreadPage extension was using an old method of passing text, which was no longer supported by AbuseFilter; ProofreadPage has been updated and there should be no more false positives. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Confession time - I made a mistake...
For reference, I managed to blank something by mistake when (unexpectedly) logged out:- https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:Records_of_Woman.pdf&oldid=9186723

I noticed immediately and repaired the mistake, but still noting it here for transparency reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

American Seashells
Could you, please, undelete: and possibly other related pages in main & author ns which I cannot see.
 * this index
 * these pages

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


 * Done. Yann: thanks!--Zyephyrus (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Moving Pictures in Rhyme
I am writing to apologize for the massive moves I am going to perform. I have transcluded the work Pictures in Rhyme as the contributor who proofread most of the work did not know how to do it. However, I was mislead by the red link at the Index page and by the name of the djvu file and named the work and all its subpages "Pictures In Rhyme" instead of the correct "Pictures in Rhyme". Now I am going to move all of them which means that quite a lot of unnecessary redirects will be tagged to delete. I do apologize for the inconvenience. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The Law of Liberty
An anonymous IP user keeps replacing the transcribed text at The Law of Liberty with images of the pages. Can someone semi-protect the page? Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Although if scans are available, it would be good to migrate to transcription. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris (1812)
A user uploaded English treaty text to Multilingual Wikisource, but it seems to belong here. Can an admin import the text with history? Ankry (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The text is already here, Treaty of Paris (1814). Despite the year in the title, they appear to be identical. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Dog and Rapper Vandal
Reporting [offensive username redacted --Xover (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)] as a harassment only account and as a sock of the Dog and Rapper Vandal. Please run a sleeper check too. --IanDBeacon (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are (and have been) no edits here from that user. CheckUser functions for enWS are run by the Stewards. Presumably they are already involved. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Protect userpage?
This user has not made a logged-in edit since 2016, and the user page is getting IP edits recently. I'd suggest protecting the user page (unless the user expresses a different preference) -Pete (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The instances of vandalism seem to be rather isolated. BD2412 T 23:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure -- my concern is, I'm not sure whether any admins (or anybody at all) is watching that page, and I'd rather not be responsible for tracking it. I can keep an eye on it but it's likely I'll miss something. I don't know what the standard practices are here, but to me it seems like a good practice to default to protecting a user page if there's any reason to do so at all, in the absence of an objection from the user. -Pete (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's now on my watchlist. I do sometimes protect userpages, but I prefer to wait for multiple instances. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Just logging here that the same vandalism was repeated today. -Pete (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverted page to last stable version and protected it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've also put the page on my watchlist. And as the page now requires autoconfirmed to edit the IP vandalism should drop off. So I'm marking this section as resolved: do please feel free to remove the template if you believe there is more to discuss or the section should not be archived yet! --Xover (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for autopatrol
Hi. I'd like to request autopatroled rights. I focus on US Supreme Court cases, and their opinions are all public domain. I understand the strict rules about copyright and believe that I can be trusted with this right. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Autopatrol implemented Ineuw (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

crosswiki vandalism
Please delete User talk:WikiBayer and User talk:Rodhullandemu and protect for a long time See enwikinews commons, Wikiversity, Wikispecies and other projects.(SWMT)---WikiBayer (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see Prosfilaes has already taken care of your request—both talk pages are semi-protected and the offending account indeffed—so I'm marking this section as resolved. Note that RH&E's talkpage has legitimate content in the edit history so that's not been deleted, but the offensive edits have been revdel'ed. --Xover (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeffed user has made two unblock requests since. I have declined them both and have placed an indefinite protection on their talk page. If the block length is modified, please feel free to unprotect without checking with me first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay this is the second time I've had to revert vandalism on a user talk page...
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&action=history

Can an admin please apply revdel (or even oversight) some disturbing vandalism which isn't work safe? On some other sites I've been active this type of vandalism is grounds for an extended block. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Same type of vandalism as in the history here - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:INeedSupport&action=history from a simmilar IP address, so I am wondering if it might be the same entity responsible... Not sure if a range block is appropriate yet.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a string of xwiki LTAs who seek to cause displeasure wherever they can do so. Generally flowing on from the WPs, so we simply shut it down and protect the pages. If they are sneaking past autoconfirmed protection, I will bring in some filters, or write some at Meta that more generally apply. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Block request 2.84.9.177
There have been multiple vandalizing edits from this IP address to National Geographic, even after being warned repetedly to stop. Quanstizium (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No action made. There are no edits here from that IP address. Nor have there been recent edits to National Geographic. The only edits from the requester are this request. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeking a second opinon.
Special:Contributions/BigChungusBig

I'm getting a NOTHERE vibe but would appreciated a second opinon. I will attempt to revert some of the their efforts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know what NOTHERE means but I've blocked the user for vandalism. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a enwp-ism. --Xover (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruption by User:EncycloPetey

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Autopatroller User Rights

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Oversight

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker Edit Filter

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting the activation of the OCR daemon

 * This section was archived on a request by: --Xover (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Out of scope and copyvio related to the Hong Kong situation
Over the last few days, a user has created:


 * Category:Hong Kong Extradition Bill
 * Admiralty Declaration
 * Anonymous against Hong Kong Police (2019)
 * Declaration of Hong Kong Protesters

By my estimation these are all out of scope and copyright violations (2019 works without a compatible license). They also appear to be being added across several language wikisources ( your take?). The editor in question gives every appearance of acting in good faith.

I would appreciate it if someone more experienced could take a look at the issue. --Xover (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would concur that those modern anonymous works are not clearly in the public domain with a license that would allow us to reproduce. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the uploader's talk page. We should give them a few days to comply, then delete if they are not fixed. do you want to follow up on their contributions to zhWS? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious copyvio, unless explicitly released to public domain, we're not to keep those. Viztor (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

These works have now been deleted. The category could be deleted too I guess, though there is stuff that could reasonably be placed in it (such as the extradition bill itself). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Transwiki Import request
Per this post and this Wikipedia deletion debate. Admins over there would like to transwiki Full translation of the Behistun Inscription over here (likely to Translation:Behistun_Inscription). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 20:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a published translation (in 1907, see footnote [1]), so it would not go into the Translation namespace. However, we would need a copy stripped of all the added images and commentary. A second (annotated) copy containing reference images and wikilinks could be hosted once a stripped down copy of the original was in place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done No wait, I forgot the Wiki-links. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Now it's ✅ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am a little surprised to see the work here in the current form, as that is an excerpt of what was published, and out of context of its publication. It isn't our task to rescue enWP's out of scope works just because. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have copied the trimmed form of Full translation of the Behistun Inscription to Translation:Behistun_Inscription; I then reverted Full translation of the Behistun Inscription to the full form with notes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved the text to Behistun Inscription (King and Thompson) because this is a published translation from 1907, and not a Wikisource original translation. When the annotated version is transwikied, it should go to Behistun Inscription (annotated) and have a pointer to the unannotated version. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you please import the page history as well? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have the ability to do that, as far as I know, and my computer is incompatible with the mechanism used for transwiki imports. There are only a couple of admins here who might be able to transwiki a file from Wikipedia, and I can't recall the last time we did so, or who performed the action. Billinghurst, Hesperian, DeirdreAnne, or Jusjih are the admins most likely to know what to do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Every admin has the ability to transwiki import, it is XML that is restricted. Rights expressed at special:listgrouprights. The source of import is configured on an individual wiki level, and we have enWP on that dropdown list. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have transwiki'ed Full translation of the Behistun Inscription and moved the result to Translation:Behistun Inscription. I ticked the wrong box so the edits in its revision history are assigned to the enwp users rather than the local users, but that should be a mostly cosmetic issue; its full revision history is included. I put the one with full history in the Translation: namespace since the richest version (the annotated one) is the one with the most edits, and the mainspace version is in effect a cut&paste move of a pared down version. For revision history this makes sense, even if for policy purposes the bare version should be primary and come first, and the annotated version be secondary and follow after. For technical reasons, both versions cannot have full revision history (each edit has a unique identity and can only exist once on a given wiki). Translation:Behistun Inscription now needs cleaning up (redlinks, enwp templates, etc.), and Behistun Inscription (King and Thompson) needs to refer to it for attribution purposes. --Xover (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I acted on my understanding of the above discussion that suggested the issue was simply one of annotated—unannotated, and since an unannotated version was provided the annotated one could be hosted here. If there are further issues with it then my importing of it should not be taken as any particular stance or argument on the issue. Or put another way, I've mainly acted as a technical helper because EncycloPetey indicated they were unable to perform the technical task. (I also see I was mistaken in thinking annotated works should go in the Translation: namespace. I've either misunderstood something somewhere, or my understanding was based on out of date information). --Xover (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation namespace is for works that were translated from other languages by Wikisource editors, and for nothing else —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my fault because I was the one who suggested it be moved there because I didn't know it was based on a published work. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree with regard to extracts of works. In this case, however, the parent work puts the translation text interlinear with the original, which is written in a script that almost no one here would be able to code and prepare. As such, the translation seemed to have merit, especially since a heavily annotated version had been prepared to assist readers. Under other circumstances, an extract from a publication would simply be subsumed into a transcription, and effecting a text rescue would not be of significant value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The approach taken by Beleg Tâl is more in line with what I would have expected. I simply said I was surprised that it was there in the form that arrived. It is a published work, publicly available and among zillions of published works that we don't have. There was no need to rush, nor ultimately to rescue when it was outside of our scope. At enWP we had the opportunity to explain about their halved-chewed discards, and we could have educated and informed about editions, and provenance of our works. For this work, like any other work, if someone wishes to work on it great, and there may have been some volunteers at enWP who were going to take interest. Dunno. P.S. If it came across as laying fault, then my apologies, that was not my intent. My intent was we rushed, rather than took the step back and considered our scope, and alignment with our scope.— billinghurst  sDrewth  02:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't take your comment as implying any fault. After all, I'm the one who tracked down a scan of the source at IA and linked to it, establishing a toehold for what Beleg Tâl has now done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia.djvu is now live. Differences in the translation were made by Wikipedia editors and will need to be reverted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have moved the two pages to their appropriate locations.
 * The Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia/The Persian Text is the work itself, to be migrated to DJVU
 * The Sculptures and Inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia/Annotated/The Persian Text is the annotated edition
 * —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So how should I go about transcluding this? Should we include the non-latin characters in the annotated version? I would suspect not, right? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already started a discussion on the subject, at Index talk:The sculptures and inscription of Darius the Great on the Rock of Behistûn in Persia.djvu —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by PigsontheWing
Repeated reversions at Author:Frederick W. Lanchester both of cleanup and of linking to better scan. Metadata should be housed at Wikidata; not on Author pages. Better quality scans, such as those from the University of California are preferred over Google Scans Looking for advice from other admins given recent history. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "from other admins" oh, damn! CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is too much drama for me, I don't think it matters if the publisher is listed on the author page, or what scan we link to, none of this is against policy, ext scan links are just a convenience anyway, if you want a better scan then you have to upload and proofread one, otherwise there are more important things to do around here, I would just move on if it were me —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The description as vandalism seems unjustified. You removed content that others think desirable. Do you have any further comment? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WS:VANDAL defines as a "deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the library". If the revert had happened just once, it might be understandable as an oversight, but repeatedly replacing a link to a high-quality scan with a link to a low-quality scan reduces the quality of Wikisource. Editors who begin transcription projects preferentially upload the linked scan rather than checking for better scans. Thus, replacing scan links with links to poor-quality scans will reduce the quality of the library, and the description as vandalism is justified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not what happened, Andy restored the better link after reverting your removal of the other information, in a single edit that clearly shows it was recognised as an improvement. What that user did was not vandalism. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion request
Please, delete Index:Bohemian section at the Austrian exhibition, 1906.pdf. It was replaced by Index:Guide to the Bohemian section and to the Kingdom of Bohemia - 1906.djvu, which is a better copy of the same edition. Thank you very much. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Index:Poet Lore, volume 31, 1920.pdf can be also deleted, having been replaced by Index:Poet Lore, volume 31, 1920.djvu. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming account with lost password?
I've run into a slightly thorny problem and could use some assistance.

A user has registered an account here, and made several contributions with it, but has subsequently lost access to the account. The account does not have email enabled, and the user has not succeeded in regaining access to it through password reset etc.

Now a different (new) account is claiming to be the person who registered the original account and wishes to have it deleted because the username is the same as that person's real name (they did not understand that their username would be public). Their behaviour is entirely consistent with this, and there is no apparent reason to distrust their story, but neither are there any easy ways to actually verify their identity as the account owner.

If the issue here was just getting access to their old account the standard answer would be "Make a new account". But here the concern is personal information that needs to be hidden.

Do we have any good mechanism to handle this situation? Could we have them email proof of real life identity to OTRS and take a name match to the account name as sufficient verification to have the old account renamed? Are there any magical backdoor mechanisms for resetting the password for an account without email, and, if so, what verification is needed for that?

They assert that their current IP address is the same as it was when they created the original account. Would it be permissible for the Checkusers to check this claim in these circumstances, and would we consider this sufficient evidence on its own to justify a global account rename?

Actually, since we're in effect talking about a global account rename either way here, do I need to ask the Stewards on Meta directly what options we have and what verification would be required?

Any advice would be much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think w:WP:RENAME gives an outline of what can be done here —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just push them to the stewards, don't wear the grief. If there is personal information available bar the name (names are not unique, and they can be faked) then we just delete the private information. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In this instance it seems the original account was created to contribute material related to local history, such that now if you google their hometown and real name you'll hit their Wikisource user talk page (and another user's talk page where they also posted). Their original contributions were all deleted as out of scope, and they were rather confused by how Wikisource works, so you can imagine that their talk page isn't exactly a glossy social media profile (nothing spectacular, just not something you want as the first google hit about yourself). I imagine we might be able to alleviate the worst of their concerns by deleting their old user talk page and redacting their name from the other user's talk page, since that would hide it from google. And nothing of any great import would be hidden, but we would be revdel'ing what could potentially be someone else's contribs without actual evidence. Would this be a reasonable course of action here?If we're to hand the username issue off to the Stewards, what is the proper process and venue for it? Should I post a request on the user's behalf on USURP? Request a Steward on IRC? Won't they just bounce it back to WS to resolve?I feel pretty bad for this user as they were clearly trying to contribute in good faith in an area they cared deeply about, and then ran head first into the brick wall that is all the weird wiki-specific stuff that is completely outside the context that most people are prepared to handle. To the degree we can help them clean up the resulting mess without compromising policy I would very much like us to do so. --Xover (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We manage local issues/edits, we cannot manage global accounts that is stewards (well the limited amount that accounts be managed, and they cannot reset or re-align accounts). I have no issue with our revdel'ing user talk pages. The user should contact stewards either via Stewards' noticeboard (public) or via their email address  (privately). — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Ok. Then I am going to use my own judgement in hiding information here, and then refer the user to the Stewards if they want to pursue the username issue. Based on my assessment so far the local actions will amount to simply deleting two user talk pages for accounts that I believe to be previous accounts created by this user, and possibly revdel'ing one old edit to WS:S/Help. All edits to the affected pages are related to the user's now-deleted contributions and are by the user themselves or admins trying to assist the user. I considered also blocking the two old accounts (leaving talk page access open) as presumed abandoned, but have for now decided that that would have little benefit and has some potential for negative effects (I mention this in order to invite feedback if anybody would judge that issue differently). --Xover (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

IP range threats
Cross-wiki drama imported by IP using a range of addresses and making threats. e.g. this edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can point out explicit examples of behaviour on English Wikisource that warrants administrative action, then we can take action accordingly. Otherwise, saying things like "encyclopetey u will pay for this" will just get yourself banned, your edits reverted, and your legitimate grievances ignored. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Upgrading our abuse filters to allow blocking

 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion
Delete Index:Bohemian Review, 1917–Czechoslovak Review, May 1919.djvu, please. There are some pages missing and it is going to be replaced by individual volumes, such as Index:The Bohemian Review, vol1, 1917.djvu. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Will let you have managed at Commons. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I think I will keep the file at Commons, as it has some other advantages, like coloured title pages, so it can be useful to have there both. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/159.146.14.0/24
Please remove talk page access. Thank you :) 大诺史 (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thanks. --Xover (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: DannyS712 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Plan to change default block periods
I am suggesting, and if there are no complaints, to change the default duration for blocks in the dropdown list—Mediawiki:ipb-default-expiry and Mediawiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip. My thoughts on duration will be "infinite" for account names (the first), and to "1 day" for IP addresses (the second), both currently empty aka "other time". This will mean that when admins follow a block link they will get the respective defaults set in the dropdown list.

This change has no impact on the ability for administrators to choose which ever time they wish to block, it is just the default presentation. I have selected these durations based on an analysis of special:log/block and my experience with blocking spambots, which are be default our biggest client.

The only risk within that is that if someone goes to a nude form special:block and puts in an IP address, the default "infinite" will be there. The monitoring for this is via blocklist, and I think that the risk is minimal and easily monitored and fixed. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC) ✅ there being neither strident nor immediate objection. If it is problematic, then we can blank or delete the configurations. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the risk, such as it is, is that admins will start taking the default block lengths as suggested block lengths and start issuing blocks that are too long or too short. I don't believe this is very likely, and I think there are much better ways to handle that if it should occur, so I think changing the defaults as you propose is a very good idea. Less clicking for routine tasks is always good, and at least in my experience 99.9% of the use for blocks here are the robotic link spammers that should just be indeffed (there's no human involved, and the accounts do nothing but spam external links, so there's no reason to leave them sleeper accounts to reuse later). --Xover (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Obligations / expectations of administrators
In light of recents matters where it might have helped if there were clear community guidelines on what our expectations of administrators are, I have rewritten Adminship to express my own view of the matter.[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource%3AAdminship&type=revision&diff=9303249&oldid=7274399] This is of course merely a conversation starter. Please feel free to revert, edit, but most importantly, discuss. Hesperian 00:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The way your additions are worded put them in conflict with some established policies, such as the Blocking policy, specifically regarding unblocking. Your added text would change policy so that if any established user challenges a block, then the blocked account must be unblocked and cannot be blocked until a community discussion is held to obtain consensus, even in cases where the blocking admin has additional (even sensitive) information. It also strains against the blocking policy's guidelines for controversial blocks.


 * I would disagree with a single opposition constituting a failure of consensus and the need to obtain consensus. Two established editors, perhaps, but not just one. We have a number of policies and decisions established by consensus for which there are lone voices of dissent. And as we have no ground rules rule for deciding "consensus" in a discussion, where typically there are often only two or three voices doing the discussing, I can see a path down which every decision could be challenged, rendering sysops impotent. Look through most deletion discussions, where the rules are well defined: yet deletion discussions have few participants, and can drag on for months without reaching any clear decision.


 * I would recommend starting a discussion to gather input and iron out the phraseology before adding the text, particularly as there has not been strong support of your view expressed in any of the discussion thus far. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've made a few alterations to try to account for the fact that policies are the result of community consensus, and that some actions follow discussion. I'm still not sure about "Administrators should not use their rights in disputed matters in which they are involved" because "involved" could mean almost anything. On Wikipedia, the very fact that an administrator has stepped in means they are "involved", so the limitation becomes self-referential. On Wikisource, it is also much rarer to find any situation where active admins are not "involved" because we are a much smaller community than Wikipedias. Any active admin is going to be "involved" in most situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Petey, I don't see a substantive conflict with the blocking policy. Let us say that an established editor engages in disruptive behaviour, and that an administrator blocks them in accordance with the blocking policy. Your concern is that the established editor who has been blocked would immediately object to the block, and that the blocker would be obliged immediately to unblock. I can appreciate your concern that this would render the blocking policy toothless. However, my response is that blocking an established editor is always a highly contentious action, even when in accordance with policy; and that the blocker, upon applying the block, ought immediately to advise the community what they had done and why. Having done so, it would very soon become clear whether the block had broad community support or not. If the block turns out to be contentious, then yes, the block should be lifted. If the blocking admin is so silly as to block an established editor and not immediately lay their rationale before the community, then yes, the block should be lifted as soon as the established editor objects.

The over-riding principle is that the administrator uses their tools to enact the will of the community, rather than their own will. If they act unilaterally and fail to check that the will of the community is what they think it is, they may find they have to undo what they've done.

What I want to move us away from is the situation where administrators take unilateral actions that turn out to be contentious, then argue down the community until we all get sick of the drama and move on, until the next contentious unilateral use of the tools.

Hesperian 03:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The way your additions were originally worded, any objection by any established editor would overturn any sysop action, even if there is clear policy (established by consensus) or even if there had just been a discussion which had reached consensus. Even if there was clear policy, established by consensus. This isn't about "will", it's about the fact that policies and discussions can exist where there has been consensus reached. If any objection by anyone can overturn policy and consensus discussions, then consensus is meaningless. If someone has an objection to policy or a closed discussion, then that person should initiate a discussion to reverse previous decision or to change policy. It should not be within the power of any individual to override policies and community decisions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree with your changes, which pretty much give administrators a free pass if their actions are in accordance with their reading of policy. I would say that 99% of disputes over administrative actions are essentially disputes over whether policy applies / has been properly interpreted / has been properly applied. How are these disputes resolved?: by testing community consensus. How do you know that your application of policy may not be quite in accordance with community consensus? — the first sign is that an established editor objects to what you have done.
 * It is the will of the community that rules. Policy merely provides excellent guidance in figuring out what the will of the community is.
 * Hesperian 03:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate we're editing forward on this, instead of reverting each other, despite coming from quite different viewpoints. I have made further edits that hopefully encompass both our perspectives. Hesperian 03:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be the obligatory pedantic contrarian that rains on everyone's parade: I don't appreciate it… in that you are having the discussion in a public facing page that carries authority similar to policy. Such pages should be stable (barring trivial changes) until a consensus is established for change. And it doesn't help that the discussion isn't neutral: it is triggered by a specific issue that is the subject of controversy, and as such all observers will be coloured by that context. In other words, the discussion should be had here and Adminship changed only when consensus for that change is reached. In fact, I feel so strongly about that that were I not a relative newbie both to WS and the bit I would have been inclined to revert the page to the status quo pending a consensus forming here.And I think that issue is somewhat symptomatic of the underlying problem: enWS has a bit of an aversion to what is perceived as "bureaucracy" (process and policy), wanting instead to deal with stuff ad hoc, leading to conflicting guidance, guidance that is a moving target, and subjective judgement on what the policy is, how it is to be interpreted, and "everyone just knows" issues. It also leaves us vulnerable to transient outrage, enthusiasm, or personal antipathy or affinity deciding the outcome of an issue. Not even Solomon would be able to legislate wisely from a single controversial issue, and a wise judgement on that single issue is impossible if there is no existing legislation to cover it. Nemo censetur ignorare legem obligates the legislature more than it does those subject to the legislation.I also have some thoughts on the substance of this discussion, but those had better be allowed to mature a bit before chiming in. --Xover (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the way this is framed. There is recognition of the overarching concerns, but failure to see these actions facilitating discussion and any solutions. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise, but I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you are objecting to. Perhaps if you could be a bit more specific I might be able to amend it to remove the grounds for the objection? --Xover (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it suggests that this is a reaction to a single incident, and that the discussion is not neutral. Even Solomon … just say what you think it should allow you to do. The purpose of sysops at wikipedia, in stark contrast to what was historically a borstel here, is to facilitate the creation of content only. Contribute some solutions, the insinuations are how every other attempt has been stifled. That is how I read the comment, what is "not appreciated" by you for some reason. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I seem to have failed to communicate my intent clearly. My apologies. I am all for the discussion taking place above, and for making the obligations and expectations of administrators clear, detailed, and as aligned with community consensus as humanly possible. What I objected to was doing that by making edits directly in the published page instead of copying the text here and making drafts for comments and discussion. I also don't think it is a good idea to rush to make such changes directly from a contentious issue, not because the discussion here is necessarily non-neutral, but because we will all weigh the immediate issue too heavily at the expense of wider and more general concerns (i.e. we will tend to address the last problem we had, not the next one). That wasn't an argument against having the discussion already started, but rather an argument that for the future we should try to make policy and guidance before we end up in the contentious situations, and by doing so preferably avoid getting into those situations in the first place. That is, my entire comment was about the meta-issue of how to do/don't go about it. The specifics of what is being discussed is something I will need to mull over a little more before I have anything sensible to contribute. Was that any clearer? Did it remove some or even all of your objections? --Xover (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, thanks for the response. If you are not informed in the usual way, I was a sysop here and there is a tale in that. I love wikisource, and think I helped others who were interested in its objectives, my passion for that is turned to heart-break and have come to some conclusions after many years of careful consideration. Outlining my last attempt to discuss matters might illuminate where I am coming from, or the first, or any in between. There is some pretty iffy activity in the history of this site, don't expect to hear much about that. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Xover, I believe I understand our culture and can correctly express consensus on this matter with minimal discussion beforehand, which is why I edited boldly. I accept that I may be mistaken, which is why I invited others to revert if they disagree. There has been no revert; only constructive editing towards consensus. That part of this process has succeeded; it has yielded all of the value that has come from this; the value of this discussion is tending towards zero.

You're an established member of our editing community and entitled to revert (whether or not I invited you to do so) but I confess I'll be pissed off if you revert constructive edits just because you don't like the process.

Hesperian 01:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't belabour the point since this digression was about a meta-issue. I also adduce that there are obviously some changes that are so trivial or uncontroversial that even in policy and policy guidance pages they should just be boldly made, and that you are certainly far better qualified than myself to judge when that applies.However, I'll point out that in the above discussion you argue (I think) that admins should be so sensitive to community opinion that all admin actions should be immediately self-reversed if anyone objects, but here when it comes to changing community-wide guidance for admins you feel comfortable changing it unilaterally and suggest further tweaking instead of reverting. To me these stances are incongruous and, in fact, my immediate thought is that they should be the other way around: more weight should be given to seeking and assessing community consensus before changing policy and guidance than what is needed a priori for individual admin actions: if the policy and guidance is good, most admin actions will be good, and individual mistakes can be handled (overturned) after the fact. Or put another way, admins have been vetted through nomination and confirmation—and are subject to votes of confidence—and their individual actions must be presumed to have been in accordance with policy until a consensus determines that they have made a mistake. But a change to policy or guidance cannot be presumed to have consensus until such is sought and assessed: regardless of how trusted and qualified the proposer is.Such policy and guidance is what guides all admin actions and the community's expectation of admins; it would be illogical to be less thorough in assessing consensus for this than for a single individual admin action.But this is all a general point and on a meta-issue. None of it should be taken as applying to any of the substance of the above discussion (it is only about the process). --Xover (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Xover
Ok, I'm not sure I've fully grasped all the factors playing in here, nor sufficiently pondered the implications. But here are some initial thoughts, deliberately as comments here rather than edits to the page for several reasons (only partly related to the process digression above). Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the goals of the changes made so far (provided I understand them correctly); but I think there some issues with the text as it stands that will have unintended consequences. --Xover (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "involved" must be better defined. For example, an admin acting in their administrative capacity does not become involved by those actions. If I patrol recent changes, see someone editing against policy, attempt to guide that editor but is ignored or rebuffed, and then take some admin action like locking a page or blocking the editor, then that does not constitute being involved. The prior actions were all in my capacity as an admin, I was just using softer and non-technical means then the tools that require the +sysop bit. The actions may still turn out to be incorrect for some other reason, but they would not be a violation of the "involved" principle. Absent a definition then the view I saw expressed recently that by stepping in as an admin I ipso facto become involved will obtain, and there will be a disincentive to admins trying softer means first if discussing can be argued to be grounds for considering them involved (safer to jump straight to using the tools that are unequivocally admin actions).
 * The bullet point list seems to be doing multiple things: it is listing criteria for using the tools, and establishing primacy of sources of authority for their use, and regulating oversight and recourse for their use. I think that is probably too much work for one short list, without overloading it with subsections and modifiers. Perhaps it would be better to boil it down to something like "All use of tools must be founded in policy or by (consensus) instruction from the community" but that some policy provides room for application of discretion. I have difficulty seeing the specifically admin issue that it would make sense to seek a priori consensus for: all such are really community issues that only incidentally bear on admins in some way (i.e. if the community decides to ban someone or permanently lock a page or class of pages, then that isn't an admin issue except that you need an admin to implement the decision). An admin initiating such a discussion isn't really acting as an admin but as a community member, and for some such cases the output is new policy (all template: pages should be protected, say) that will guide admins. And I'm not sure we want the "is otherwise confident that there is community consensus" point. Isn't the goal to reduce unilateral decisions from admins?
 * I'm not sure I agree with the presumption of lack of authority for admin actions inherent in requiring admin actions to be preemptively reversed on objection rather than retroactively on consensus. For admins to be effective there must be some presumption that they have acted correctly until the community has reached a consensus otherwise. The current text presumes all admin actions are incorrect until confirmed by the community. This assumes all actors are acting constructively and in good faith (most blocked editors here do not fall into those categories), and that human beings will not have human failings (frustration and outrage can blind all of us in the short term) when a specific contentious issue is "hot". Policy is (ideally) made when all heads are cool, and an admin acting in accordance with that policy is acting correctly and on established community consensus even if someone disagrees with that policy once an individual application of it has come up. The focus then should be on judging community consensus for changing the policy, not on castigating the admin that acted on the policy the community had given him.
 * I think it needs to be made clear that admins have been vetted through nomination, periodic confirmation, and are subject to strictures and oversight in excess of the regular editor, and as such are presumed to have some measure of extra trust. A failed vote of confidence or a failed reconfirmation is an expression that that trust has been lost, which in turn implies that that trust existed in the first place. This bears on the previous point: there needs to be a presumption that they act in accordance with policy until the community decides otherwise. All the admin actions relevant in this context are inherently controversial (otherwise the tools wouldn't have been needed), so if the bar is that low then we might as well say that all admin actions should go to the community first.

Reverted to stable version
Since my edits have been objected to[//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hesperian&diff=9312827&oldid=9167215], I have reverted back to the stable version. In my opinion all of the feedback provided so far could have been dealt with by collaboratively editing forward. I consider the objections that have led me to revert the text are pure process wonkery. An opportunity has been lost, and my appetite to participate further is zero. Hesperian 00:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That is indeed a little… well, what enwp would call POINTy. Petey is entirely correct: your proposed text does open all admins up to such gaming of their every action. I suggest you try to take the frustration you (I'm assuming) feel and try to view it as "This is what Petey is worried about will happen" rather than as a cause for despair about effecting desirable changes. Their concerns are valid, so lets try to figure out how to best balance all concerns.I have objected to the process and not the substance of the changes; and I would more characterise my comments on that as arguments in favour of a particular form of process more than an objection, per se, to the current process. If the current process (collaboratively editing the live document) is the only palatable way to progress this discussion I am entirely willing to withdraw my objection, such as it was, to facilitate progress, and to rather reserve it for some future opportunity to get up on my soapbox elsewhere.My only comments on the actual substance of the changes is in the section above, and they are there instead of edits to the live page because 1) they are insufficiently formed to be reasonable to attempt to edit in, and 2) I am sufficiently uncertain that they make sense that I feel they need honing in discussion and vetting by the community first. And, they are relative to the edited text before your revert. --Xover (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That you have been impugning, not assuming, and I see these replies as redundant at best. I honestly thought Petey was joking with his test comment in his trolling reply elsewhere, because any "established editor" could have made a change or reverted at this page. And isn't that the substance of actual disputes involving tools, when used carelessly or with outright vindictiveness. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I started to write a reply here, but have deleted it. Let me instead check: is my input in this discussion unwelcome? I don't mean unwelcome in general or anything like that; but do you feel my contributions to this particular discussion have been unconstructive, derailing, tedious, merely stating the obvious, repeating myself, failing to understand context, or similar? I intend no accusation by that question: I just don't sense anyone engaging with what I write except in ways that signal disapproval or frustration. Since I offer my participation because I imagine it to have some value, I would refrain if that were not the case. --Xover (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For myself, I prefer a solution. Clarity, brevity, edit the page or propose changes. What seems to be happening is bogging this down with blather, assertion and process and keeping the fairly simple clarification to admin actions from being enacted. Why do you think it would be any different to wikipedia, that being an admin imbues one some overriding authority, if they screw some lesser user around that is their business. You have been as rude af in your assumptions and aspersions, also discouraging to any solution. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a mess; we should not be using them as a model or standard. We can be better. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has its issues arising in part from the sheer size and scope of the project, and the vast potential for bias and abuse to enter into the system. I think we can be better than that here, given the rather clear boundaries of this project. BD2412 T 03:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * would you be willing to revert to the use of "straight" (un-differentiated) quotation marks, if two "established users" or indeed established with 'additional access' were in dispute about which should be used? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Haven't I been using straight quotation marks, generally? I don't think I have a preference, although I can see an argument for using curly apostrophes to avoid conflicting with the straight apostrophes we use for formatting, and could see an argument from there to use a style of quotation marks that matches those apostrophes. BD2412 T 16:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know and that is why I chose the example. I should have made this clear but the query is and is not hypothetical, Everyone has an opinion on their own use, if they are an admin are they more correct. EP thinks that italic serif font should be imposed, or at least he doesn't mind that is packaged into the display preference he applies (layout 2), but only on the works he is doing afaik. If someone else decides to impose that layout on other documents, based on the fact that an admin has used it extensively, should they be able to do that without objection? My contention is that the past practices and assumptions of what one can do when they are granted additional tools has created a situation that is not conducive to collaboration and will attract an undesirable and unproductive amount of disruption by assertions and counter assertions. If you see where I am going with this, and it is not much to do with the conduct of EP or yourself. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment concerning: "EP thinks that italic font should be imposed". Where did that come from? I have never pushed for "italic font", and Layout 2 has nothing to do with italics. I also can't see how the issue might pertain to the current discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant a serif font, and fixed that. The discussion is, in part, how "we can be better". It was not an 'issue', it is an example for anyone to demonstrate how a very probable situation could be resolved. My recollection is that you prefer that layout, so make it the default display, the inclusion of a serif font is incidental. In a hypothetical situation User X thinks that other documents should be displayed in serifs, arguing they must emulate the printed page, that it is already widely used and is [obviously] an improvement. The point is how this becomes resolved, not the myriad of possibilities where users will disagree, I know well how it plays out in practice. This is not about any particular situation, if it were I would be discussing the use of differentiated (curly) quotation marks as an example of a little things continuing to create discord. What is the current discussion in your view? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 05:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * While I sympathise with the desire to close a somewhat ignoble chapter, the wording of implies a resolution has been achieved&mdash;where in this instance the warring parties have simply exhausted their ammunition with no apparent achievement of (or even attempt to acquire) any kind of consensus.
 * If I am I wrong please insert some kind of evidence (a pointer to external discussion is entirely acceptable) that usable lessons have been learned. 114.78.66.82
 * There is no proposal, there is comment, and the comment has come to a conclusion, so what more is expected. In lieu of a proposal, it would seem that there is resolution. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * O.K. It would appear we are operating under a misunderstanding: your definition of resolution is closer to how I would use the term exhaustion. I have no objections to closing this discussion whatsoever. However it would have been nice to have been able to point to lessons learned, or a pre-existing unchallenged policy&mdash;neither of which are particularly obvious to me in this instance. Go ahead and close it anyway. I reluctantly withdraw the objection. 114.78.66.82 05:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolved for the purposes of archiving. I have amended the template's text. I would suggest that having a conversation on the talk page would be the appropriate way to progress with a notification here of that further discussion. I added a note to this conversation on that talk page. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC) nil all draw, bruises sustained, participants returned to status quo.

Vandal

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nuke

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

another vandal
{{closed|resolved|text=

See Page talk:United States Statutes at Large Volume 26.djvu/356 and many others. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * {{re|Jan.Kamenicek}} {{done}} Blocked and nuked. Probably same individual as the thread above. --Xover (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

And another one Special:Contributions/159.146.14.209, Range Block time? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And can someone also do something about the talk pages for these vandals? and revoke talk page access for these IP's?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And they hop again, this time to Special:Contributions/159.146.18.177 (sigh) :( , I am wondering if it's vandal script.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Now Special:Contributions/159.146.45.195 - I think a range block is needed, with a suitably worded block notice ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A different ISP?, but the same pattern. Special:Contributions/37.154.188.45  ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/37.154.210.247 . ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/37.154.224.65, We might need another range block? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/37.154.238.216 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Arbitary break

 * Special:Contributions/176.227.13.132 Is WMF T&S or Legal aware? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The Stewards seem to be dealing with it. The current wave of petty vandalism doesn't rise to T&S/Legal levels of intervention. It's mainly just annoying. --Xover (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/5.24.77.219 - As I said is WMF Legal aware? This is getting silly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/178.240.201.205 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * as other admins who have edited in the last hour while this was happening. Seems like numerous /16 rangeblocks will be necessary. Mahir256 (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/178.240.238.128 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/188.58.117.135 Is there a way to block an entire provider? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

}}
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock for multiple large ranges (/22, /17, /18, /19) placed

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

IP posting gibberish...

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

WS:AIV request

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Temporary partial block on user:2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:F85D:7D62:6A92:28C9 and 180.183.40.75

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Copy and paste vandal returned
{{closed|resolved|text=

Hi to all. Our copy and paste vandal is back, and we will simply need to be quick to shut down the Turkish IPs that are abusing. Not to be concerned about going to heavy for short periods of time. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * {{comment}} {{ping|Beeswaxcandle}} special:abusefilter/39 and I have put some explanatory notes, and it is not not content-related. Whilst the blocks are in place it will only impact the single namespace. If they return at the expiry of the blocks, or if we remove the blocks, then we can see how the remainder work, I have batch tested, and tested against those flagged against the global filter. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Turkish IP addresses used for vandalism
Blocking these IP ranges for an extended period of time We will need to be watching for valid editing requests on user talk pages, and manage the invalid editing. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC) }}
 * special:contributions/176.227.0.0/18
 * special:contributions/178.240.192.0/18
 * special:contributions/5.24.64.0/19
 * special:contributions/159.146.0.0/17
 * special:contributions/37.154.0.0/16
 * special:contributions/188.58.64.0/18
 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Author:Sukavich Rangsitpol

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, did we celebrate 1 000 000 proofread pages?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

IP contributions in Polish(?)

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Abuse Filter problem

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Move some pages?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Lupste

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for an interface admin to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-ocr.js

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Title blacklist updated to prevent invisible characters in page names

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Judicious cleaning required from Special:UnusedFiles
I was just poking my head into Special:UnusedFiles. There are a significant number of images that utilise raw page scan that should be checked and if truly unused, we can delete as the file has been transwiki'd to Commons. And I note that always physically check their usage as I have previously seen that the NOT USED assessment is not always accurate.

Checking and deleting process:
 * Use the Page:&hellip; link
 * At Page:&hellip; check that there is a Commons loaded image in place (and no use of template:raw image)
 * grab the new filename
 * click back to the local image, delete the image, noting "File transwiki'd" and paste in the new filename (preferred not mandatory)

If admins could do 10 to 20 a session, we should get through them in a month or so. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * TIP: when doing the image check you can even take the time to validate proofread page with the image (very often sittin gin proofread status). — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the list is maxed out at 5k, so there's no telling how many more of them there are (we have over 20k files tagged as raw page scans, possibly more that are untagged), it's highly unlikely we'll get through that in a month. But it's certainly something we need to start chipping away at.And we should possibly even start considering more drastic measures, like periodically bot-deleting anything in Category:Raw page scans for missing images that isn't used anywhere (including inbound links). The manual processing is tedious and time-consuming, and provides very little additional value compared to an automated approach (linking to the replacement image in the deletion log, mostly, and that has marginal value at best). We'd need to check closely whether the category contains files that could be caught as false positives in such a run, but barring such pitfalls automation may be both the best option and the only realistic way to ever clear out this backlog (we have plenty of other image-related backlogs where human attention is necessary).Oh, PS, has a neat user script at User:DannyS712/Change status.js that makes cases such as this a lot quicker. I'm not sure they consider it ready for prime-time (I don't think it's been advertised anywhere), so caveat emptor, but I've been using it a good bit today and seen no problems. To use, add   to your common.js. --Xover (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the script, it adds a link to the function (next to the "move" function) that will, if the page is "not proofread" or "problematic", mark it as "proofread". If it is already "proofread", and the user can mark it as validated, it marks it as validated instead. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with that this kind of tasks should be automated.Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point I would think that the task is to start to chip away. I don't see that there is urgency in cleaning this space, so as long as we start. So what if it takes three months, heck I have works that I dip in and out of for years. As I said I have seen multiple issues of the tool being wrong in the past, if we can demonstrate that this is no longer the issue, then maybe we can look to bot removal. I though the admin review, and process of validating was beneficial. P.S. Those quiescent admins, and those who find it hard to identify tasks to undertake are given a gift here! — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Having done about a hundred of these by hand… I'd say the realistic best case sustained rate here is something like 5 admins doing 5 files per day for 5 days a week. That's an aggregate rate of about 500 per month. If the number is 5k that means 10 months to get through it. If the number is 20k that's 40 months, or just shy of 3.5 years. I don't have sufficient data for an accurate estimate of net time, but assuming a range of 30-60 seconds per file, at 5k files that's an aggregate ~40–80 net admin-hours expended. At 20k files that's ~160–320 net admin hours. Assuming an 8 hour work day, that's one dedicated admin working flat out only on this for between one week (5k/30s) and 2 months (20k/60s). With no lunch break, by the way. That's a pretty high cost.On the upside we have tagging the logs for deleted files with a link to the replacement images. But that only matters if you're actually looking at the deleted file, and for these raw page scans that is essentially never going to happen. Having a human in the loop also helps guard against Mediawiki bugs in categorising etc., but while, yes, that does happen, it's been years since I've run into that kind of bug anywhere that would matter here. What usually happens is that counts and references fail to update properly when pages are deleted, so you get categories saying they have members, but in reality the relevant items have already been deleted; and these eventually get cleared out by periodic maintenance tasks.In other words, doing this manually is expensive and with a significant opportunity cost, and without a concomitant value. Automating it obviously carries risks (automatically deleting up to 5-20k files should never be done lightly). But with appropriate checks—for example, all files listed on Special:UnusedFiles who are also in category Raw page scans and who have no incoming links in WhatLinksHere—manual spot checks, and going in batches… the risk should be eminently manageable. --Xover (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can work out shortly a script that can scan category Raw page scans and checks for the conditions for deletion (and in case deletes). If you are OK to test small batches, let me know.Mpaa (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you have it run up a list of files and dump it in a sandbox somewhere so we can spot check the logic? Maybe a hundred or so files that the script thinks should be deleted, and, if relevant, the ones it thinks shouldn't be. Better to find any holes in the logic before we start deleting stuff. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here: res sandbox.Mpaa (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I've spot-checked pages from most of the works represented in that list and found none incorrect. I'd have no objection to running that (in batches so it can be checked; there're bound to be some pathological edge-case out there somewhere). --Xover (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done a small test batch of 45 pages as Mpaa.Mpaa (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've spot-checked 2–3 files from each work in those 45, and find no real problems. The only issue I see is that the deletion log for File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-453.png links to c:File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu instead of c:File:A Book of the West - ALMS HOUSES, S GERMANS.png; and ditto for File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-223.png that points to c:File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu instead of c:File:A Book of the West - LAKEHEAD, KISTVAEN.png. --Xover (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I fixed it, I ran another ~40 pages.Mpaa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if we can set up a scrolling gallery that does nothing but compare our page image side-by-side with the comparable Commons file. An editor could scroll through and eyeball any differences fairly quickly. BD2412 T 22:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Poking at this again…

I found no problems with Mpaa's test bot run, and we still have potentially ~20k files sitting there that it would be a waste of admin resources to process manually. Can we pull the trigger on a mass delete of these? If not, what are the concerns? --Xover (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I ran about 15 pages to check that everything is still OK. Mpaa (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Watch out for files unacceptable on Commons, especially if still copyright-restricted at home.--Jusjih (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The images from The Coronado expedition, 1540-1542, uploaded by Hesperian in 2013 already exist on the commons and are linked to Index:The Coronado expedition, 1540-1542.djvu— Ineuw (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)