Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2020

Why not introduce some maintenance obligations for admins?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Unwarranted

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

National Library of Scotland contributors
We've recently had several contributors from NLS create accounts and start making contributions. Presumably this is while they are in lockdown and working remotely. They don't seem to have had any guidance on how to do things here—particularly in the area of basic layout. This means that the content is being validated, but the presentation is lacking. There's also no structure for transclusion from the Page: namespace to the Mainspace. As there are in the order of 15 to 20 NLS contributors, so I'm asking for some help in assisting them to bring their valued contributions up to our standards. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, I have been working off-Wiki with the NLS to develop guidelines for their staff to make useful contributions here. There are now more than 50 contributors who will be doing the initial pass-through of the OCRed text. They will be followed up by a smaller group of validators who will ensure that the layout of the pages meets our requirements. Once works are fully validated, a small team of NLS people will do the transclusions. I'll be assisting with this last while they get used to the process. The primary goal of NLS is to get the text up, so that it can be used in their searchable datamarts. A by-product is that we benefit by gaining access to works that are not held anywhere else and we may well gain some more longer-term contributors once this project is completed. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Lua module error for multiple Author pages
Something has been broken. On multiple Author pages, instead of an image, we now get a "Lua error in module". I've spotted the error on multiple Author pages, but a "null edit" fixes the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: I've made null edits to all authors linked from the Main page, as well as a few high-profile authors and Classical author pages to speed clean-up. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A single subpage within the module was created, and it existed for 5 minutes until the issue was identified. I am surprised that 1) it flowed through and 2) stayed flowed through. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's been nearly 24 hours and we still have multiple broken Author pages. We may need to run a bot to do touch-edits on all the pages in the Author namespace to fix this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing any broken author pages. I suggest you purge your cache. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my cache. I'm visiting Author pages that I've never visited from this computer, and the error is not browser dependent. I've checked on three different machines running three different operating systems with Safari (on two of them), Chrome, and Firefox.  The same pages produces an error on all three machines.  The error does not show up on all pages, but appears more often on pages for high-profile authors. I spent 90 minutes last night manually making null edits for as many as I could, but I'm still finding pages with Lua errors even now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have opened one hundred Special:Random/Author logged in Firefox, and 100 logged out in Chrome. Not one has an error. Please see if you can purge Module:Wikidata/i18n, thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To purge, I would first have to re-create the page, which is probably a bad idea. I cannot purge a page that has been deleted. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It exists/existed in your system as that is the error that you are getting, so purging it in your cache should remove it. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I already indicated: I purged my cache and that did not fix the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Death of User:Dmitrismirnov
At special:permalink/10084886 there is the announcement of the death of Dmitry, one of our long term and quietly achieving administrators. I have protected the page with a link to the Russian Wikinews item, notified stewards, removed from admin list, and closed him on the graph at Administrators/Archives. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Rights removed — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Move request
I would like to ask to move the work Evening Songs (1919) and all its subpages to the correct title Evening Songs (1920). I apologize for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — billinghurst  sDrewth  16:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please move page and subpages
Please move the following page, and be sure to tick the box to move all subpages:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:MovePage/Page:History_of_California,_Volume_1_(Bancroft).djvu

Change the number "1" to "3" (this is actually a scan of volume 3).

This should be an uncontroversial one. Thanks to user:James500 for pointing out the problem. -Pete (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Mediawiki limit is 100 and this work has 200+ subpages (the limit is set based on what makes sense on enWP, not enWS where we routinely need to move 1000+ pages). This is an (admin)bot request more than an admin request, is what I'm saying. And I'm not set up for bot operations. Sorry. and : are either of you able to help here? --Xover (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining...and, sorry to make such a dumb mistake! -Pete (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We found that we can have the hack of creating a root page in the Page: namespace that allows us to move 100 pages. We can cheat by recreating the root page over and over and sequentially moving the remaining "n x 100" pages without redirect by an admin, and not requiring a bot.  Sure it is hacky loophole in the system, though quite useful so one we haven't bothered to have closed. Just need to remember to delete the root page at the end. Can I say that I still do not think that we should be creating all these non-proofread pages for no real reason, and there are a whole heap of reasons to not create these pages (header/footer/page numbering/missing pages/wrong name/...). It is not especially productive compared to creating a page and proofreading them. The community stopped creating these pages by bots unless there was a clear and good reason to do so, and the current processing doesn't seem to fit within that space. This user seems to think that they know better and continues to undertake the creation process. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum. I sometimes think that we should stop standard users from moving Index: and Page: namespace pages with a filter. It is just painful to recover from that at times, and painful when we cannot get fresh access to the underlying scan. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Re: the latter part of your comment, please note that the first specific issue you called out (header) is one that I addressed via regex and manual attention prior to the Match & Split. The last work you brought this issue up with me was The Afro-American Press and Its Editors, which now, a few short months later, is 100% proofread, >50% validated, by the efforts of three dedicated contributors, and serving as source material for English Wikipedia pages as part of a campaign drive. I have tried on several occasions to engage with you in discussion about this, because I value your knowledge and your perspective; but several times, you have vanished from the discussion, sometimes stating that it's not worth talking to me, and other times simply vanishing. Either it's worth finding some common ground on process, or it's not. I am here to discuss if you would ever like to do so. I am open to adjusting my practices, but any discussion that starts from the obviously false premise that I'm an annoyance who does not do productive work and/or is not worth talking to is unlikely to go well. Please, think about your own role in this apparent disagreement, the shape of which I do not fully understand.
 * On your last comment, was it unhelpful for me to do the parts of maintenance that were available to me? I had thought that by doing those, I was reducing the impact on admins to help fix the problem. But if it would have been easier to simply report the problem here and let and admin take care of it all at one go, that makes sense to me. Just let me know if that's your preference, and I'll keep it in mind if a similar situation comes up. -Pete (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh. I hadn't even considered whether we might be able to work around the limit like that! I guess that's why we pay you the big bucks! :) In light of that I'll try to get the moves done in a little while if nobody beats me to it.This thread now is sliding into multiple side issues, so I'm going to bite my tongue and avoid commenting on them here. But I think we should make a point of addressing them in some suitable structure (user talk or a separate thread or something). --Xover (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Please let me know if I messed anything up. --Xover (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the recent application of over a hundred thousand Page: ns pages, without proofreading, and the other issues that ensue. Nothing to any of your undertakings. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not having thought particularly hard about it or heard any arguments in the practice's favour, I generally agree with you on the batch creation of pages containing nothing but raw OCR. But I don't think we have any articulated policy to hang that on (I'm sure there are second-order stuff that could justify preventing it, but that feels like reaching) when polite requests have no effect. I'd suggest having a community discussion on WS:S to settle the issue, but with the poor participation there lately (cf. the Lilypond thread as one recent example; and that's not by far the worst example) I fear that would just cause conflict without a firm consensus either way to offset it, and thus I'm hesitant to go that route. --Xover (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that worked perfectly. Hope it wasn't too much hassle. I agree that it would be worthwhile to have some guidance about generating pages etc. For the situation you describe, in my experience the best approach is usually for a user with a clear vision to draft an essay describing what they see as best practice. That can be discussed as proposed policy, or it can sit on a wiki page unread, or it can attract discussion and incremental improvement. It can be a strong step toward greater clarity, but it requires real work on the part of the person with a strong opinion. I suppose I might be getting to the point where I could imagine taking a stab at something like that, but there are people with far more experience and far stronger opinions than me around here, so it hasn't occurred to me until now to do so.
 * Since you referred to "this user," and I'm the user who brought the issue up, and I'm the user who created all the pages, and I'm the user you've complained to about similar things in the past, I don't think I can be faulted for thinking you were talking about me. Even in hindsight it seems strange that it would be otherwise. Perhaps you were talking about James (who in this case did nothing besides identifying and reporting the problem); from your user page it appears he may have a similar story to tell about having a hard time finishing discussions with you; but I'll leave that to him. -Pete (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to address an issue to which I was pinged; please don't make people regret helping. If I am not answering many questions in many places at the time, it is due to RL. I don't have to justify how or where I spend my small amount of online time, grab some perspective. We used to apply the layers by bot, and as I remember it, through community discussion we stopped; it was often problematic and there was the general feeling there was little gain in doing so. The problems outweighed the solutions. We especially wanted to be having proofread pages in preference to slapped down "not proofread" pages. It is not a rule "to not do it" as there are times when it is of value, when people need a finding aid to transcribe. It is a practice to not do it unless there is a clear value; and it should be okay to have that as a conversation. It should be okay to ask a person to use a bot, per our guidance, if they are going to be applying over a hundred thousand pages. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing an issue on which you were pinged. You are making off topic comments that have nothing to do with the subject of this thread. James500 (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I only asked if the file and index page needed to be moved, because I cannot request file moves on commons due to interface problems, and I do not know what the effect of moving an index page is. I could have moved all the sub pages myself if others had waited 24 hours. James500 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For this kind of move it is better to have an admin do it since they can suppress redirects at the old page names, and the old incorrect names would have been in the way in this case. On the other issues I think this is a conversation that should be had elsewhere (typically on WS:S for community discussions, or user talk pages for issues relevant to a particular user). --Xover (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Page shift after page insertion
Hi,

I have a small page shift request after inserting some missing pages:


 * Index: Index:Parliamentary Papers - 1857 Sess. 2 - Volume 43.pdf
 * Pages to move (in file, not page numbers): 50, 93, 95-100
 * Shift: +2 (so page 50 becomes page 52).


 * Notes: pages 180, 182 do not need shifting.

Thanks, Inductiveload— talk/contribs  09:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --Xover (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to move Baruch Jacob Placzek
I would like to ask for moving Author:Baruch Jacob Plačzek [sic] to Author:Baruch Jacob Placzek (without diacritics). 1) This German speaking author did not use any diacritics in the name a so do not any relevant sources, including Czech National Library Database. 2) Such usage of diacritics does not make any sense, Czech diacritical version of the surname is Plaček (without "z"), German non-diacritical version is Placzek (with "z" instead of diacritics). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Change seems consistent with Wikidata and Wikipedia articles. Moved.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Billinghurst admin tool misuse
The user seems to be using their admin access to indiscrimently revert contributions of other volunteers they disagree with. Can someone stop it? Jura1 (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been making trivial, though problematic changes to the means of transclusion in Page: ns, and the section tags, though not aligning with section parameters; and in ways that make it hard to undo and unpick or to go in and recast a transclusion, and having to check both the main and page namespaces, and then tens of trivial changes to tags in Page: ns. Easiest way to resolve this is to undo them all, and go back where I didn't get it right, and making sure that the main ns pages have transcluded. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are due my apologies for not having communicated prior to undertaken the action that I did. I had replied to your post in the other forum, and as I intimated there, unpicking (reverting) these transclusions and changes over pages; it becomes like pulling that loose thread of cotton, it just unravels, and you go looking for the scissors and have to work out where to cut.  I thought that I had time to resolve the issue, and then come back to you about why and what I had done. I had set a short period of flood protection, and was doing that. My reading of your contributions indicated to me that you were not active, and clearly I presumed wrong. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please tell us all relevant edits and logs, or we cannot help.--Jusjih (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Jusjih (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Poems of Sappho and other works deleted as copyvio which have meanwhile slipped into PD

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

Whitelisting request

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Final warning: Mobile main page special casing will be disabled July

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Headers displayed twice

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

IP vandalism: 38.121.43.176

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Transwikifying assistance
Hi. I'm Barkeep49, an administrator on English Wikipedia. 126 articles were brought up for deletion there. We have consensus that these articles do not meet our guidelines but there was a feeling that they could be usefully be transwikified. Would this project be interested in the 126 articles listed here? If so can someone here assist me in importing them so I may complete our process? If there is not interest in importing these articles I can, instead, carry out our deletion process. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice!This is sufficiently borderline relative to our inclusion criteria (cf. #Reference material) that I wouldn't want to claim one thing or the other unilaterally. Let's see if we get any kind of representative discussion here at AN quickly (small project, often few people around in the middle of summer), or alternately we may simply transwiki them to a sandbox here and then have our own deletion discussion. We may eventually have to, but they're nice work and probably useful for somebody so it'd be a pity to just delete them. --Xover (talk) 07:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that they are ours to import in meeting our criteria for inclusion. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My impression is that this doesn't meet the inclusion criteria as it's user-generated, though the original might if it were public domain. Wikibooks seems possibly appropriate, perhaps somewhere in wikibooks:Department:Computing. Unicode says it exists exactly for this reason (hosting evicted enWP content). Inductiveload— talk/contribs  10:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't copyright: there's nothing copyrightable about these data tables. Nor that they're user generated: the onwiki representation just reproduces the tables in the PDF. The problem is that they are mere data, which is out of scope unless it is a subsidiary part of an overall work that is in scope. The community has in the pasted vote to keep similar items, but that is in spite of the policy. Speaking as an engineer, this information has value as reference and informational material and I would hate to see it just disappear. Anybody have a foot in over at WikiBooks so we could check whether they'd be interested? --Xover (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * though maybe who are familiar with us and there may like to advise Barkeep349 and enWP. — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, according to me Code page 875 is importable to Wikibooks. For example we already have Unicode/Character reference/0000-0FFF. JackPotte (talk) 07:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you advice on how best to proceed? A note posted to b:WB:RFI perhaps? I would be happy to help, but it's probably best if handles it directly since they have to coordinate on the enwp side anyway, and Wikisource is just a detour in this case. --Xover (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. I may then import them by bot if the time allows. JackPotte (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: Barkeep49 to work with JackPotte to enWikibooks, rather than enWS — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Correcting MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for hyper-links present in Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians
The following pages from Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians have hyper-links which need to be added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist:
 * YouTube: Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/19, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/20, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/23 (3), Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/31, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/35, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/109, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/117, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/119, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/125, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/131, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/133, Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/137, and Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/143.
 * Flickr: Page:Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf/95. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC).
 * I have suspended the youtube blacklisting. With flic.kr, just put a raw flickr.com url and/or put that in inside some wikilinks with the link being unshortcut'd. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * billinghurst: Medium for this page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC).
 * ✅ you can just wrap the urls in either   or   to get them inserted and around the spam blacklist. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to create MediaWiki:Cite link label group-lower-alpha

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove admin bit

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Blacklisted page
I have problems with founding the subpage The Conversion of St. Vladimir/A Short Historical Sketch of the life of St. Vladimir, I always receive the following message: Permission error. The title "The Conversion of St. Vladimir/A Short Historical Sketch of the life of St. Vladimir" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*(mattia|vlad|morleo).*(mattia|vlad|morleo)?.*(mattia|vlad|morleo).*

May I ask what is happening, why the subpage has been blacklisted and what can be done about it? Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is probably the repeated name "Vladimir" which causes problems for some reason, as it seems that The Conversion of St. Vladimir/A Short Historical Sketch of the life of St. George would be allowed, while The Conversion of St. Vladimir/Vladimir would not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This comes from Title_blacklist, where it was added in 2016 and modified in 2018, both apparently in response to long-term crosswiki spam. I went to create it just now for you but Xover was too fast for me. ;_; Inductiveload— talk/contribs  15:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks very much to both of you :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Renaming of group of pages required
Hi there, I transcribed and transcluded a bunch of pages regarding a New Zealand Act of Parliament, however I got the title formatting ever so slightly wrong.

I entered Subordinate Legislation Confirmation and Validation Act 2015 when I should have added brackets to the correct place. Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Act 2015

If it's easy enough for an admin to do, could you rename all pages that have that string in it to include the brackets?

There should be:


 * [[File:Subordinate_Legislation_Confirmation_and_Validation_Act_2015_(Version_22).pdf]]
 * [[File:Subordinate_Legislation_Confirmation_and_Validation_Act_2015_(Version_26).pdf]]
 * Index:Subordinate_Legislation_Confirmation_and_Validation_Act_2015_(Version_22).pdf
 * And the four pages.
 * Index:Subordinate_Legislation_Confirmation_and_Validation_Act_2015_(Version_26).pdf
 * And the five pages.
 * Subordinate Legislation Confirmation and Validation Act 2015
 * And all its sub-pages, linked in the TOC of that page.
 * Subordinate Legislation Confirmation and Validation Act 2015 (Version 22)
 * And all its sub-pages, linked in the TOC of that page.
 * Subordinate Legislation Confirmation and Validation Act 2015 (Version 26)
 * And all its sub-pages, linked in the TOC of that page.

Bonus request if it's easy. In the bodies of all these pages, there's the string "Subordinate Legislation Confirmation and Validation Act 2015" at least once or more, if it's possible to also automatically add the brackets to those, that would be fantastic. But, if that'll take a significant amount of your time, then I can just go through and do that.

Appreciate any help you can provide. Supertrinko (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Mainspace: pages moved as requested (although I have used parentheses rather than brackets [], as they are the norm in NZ legislation). Index and files not moved as there is no requirement for those names to be identical to mainspace titles. I supressed the redirects, so you'll need to adjust links as appropriate. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Oh yes I did mean parentheses rather than brackets. Appreciate your help. Supertrinko (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Phe-bot
Hi, Could someone tell me who is controlling User:Phe-bot? ZI Jony (SWMT) 14:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Phe-bot is operated by but they have been inactive for quite some time now. Is there a problem with the bot? --Xover (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Xover, thanks for response, I noticed that, that's why asked here. I actually need to add "Template:ALL TEXTS" on Punjabi Wikisource in the bot list, so bot can updates regularly. Do you have any idea how it is possible right now? ZI Jony  (SWMT) 18:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don`t actually know, but I would assume you need Phe involved to do that. At least, I am not aware of any on-wiki way to do that. --Xover (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Xover, I've send an email, if response will be better. Thanks! ZI Jony  (SWMT) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly that is phetools. Maintainers are per https://admin.toolforge.org/tools   I would think that they could tell you from whence to inhale the number. — billinghurst  sDrewth  22:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * billinghurst, Thank you. I leave messages on their home wiki talk page. ZI Jony  (SWMT) 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

User:62.149.29.50/oil-and-clown-colors.js
Vandalism, please delete. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly we could set up Abuse Filter to disallow creating subpages for IP users? Alternately, to disallow .css/.js for IP users. I don't see any legitimate use cases for these, so disallowing them would cut off this avenue for spam with no deleterious effects. --Xover (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good candidate for the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist—assuming the regex to match on IP addresses isn't too complicated? BethNaught (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User .css/.js/.json pages creation is blocked for anonymous users (IPs) globally, these both pages were created before this setting was made. -- CptViraj (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, that makes more sense. --Xover (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Found 4 more: User:86.69.154.228/phantom.js, User:86.69.154.139/mixing-sailors.js, User:79.115.134.108/monobook.js, User:24.62.144.162/common.css. Please delete, Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Xover (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we wish to find if there are others, it is going to need for someone to do a database search. I tried running both insource: and intitle: regex and the system just spat the dummy at me . — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any more via the database, but I might not have searched correctly --DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks DS. Wouldn't overly fuss it, I doubt that it is effective means to vandalise or spam. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for interface admin rights

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Bot flag for User:350bot

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy policy on raw OCR text?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Marking some more users as Autopatrolled

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Need help shifting group of pages

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:176.147.224.55/monobook.js

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic locked

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

OCR change?

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Images moved by Commons is in a thing

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The Vampyre

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

47.223.165.231

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

“The Book of the Aquarium and Cater Cabinet” pages

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

User:72.69.36.4

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of pages

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Revolutionary Nudism

 * This section was archived on a request by: Xover (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

TikTok spam
This site is a beautiful conglomeration of (mostly) older works, and we really don't need youngins coming in and spewing their newfangled TikTok crap on our talk pages and the like. Jokes aside, when is there ever even a need to discuss that platform on Wikisource, especially from newly registered users on their first edits? I have seen TikTok spam here a few times, meaning it has probably happened here far more often than I have seen it, and on Wikisource talk:General disclaimer, such spam has somehow survived for half a year before being reverted (by me). So I suggest adding a new filter for non-autoconfirmed users mentioning TikTok. PseudoSkull (talk) 06:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would support a general edit filter. I'm struggling to envision a circumstance where we would ever need a link to a TikTok. BD2412 T 16:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * True. Unfortunately the spammers I have seen don't usually post links; they seem to know that already triggers a filter. They just post that they have a TikTok, and I guess they suspect we will look their username up there. So filtering for the keyword "tiktok" alone for new users I think should be done, which would cover external links and mentions. PseudoSkull (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I once went through the project fixing scannos where "modern" had been transcribed as "modem" on the theory that we won't have mentions of modems in public domain works. Of course, we do have a number of more recent government documents, so it is not unthinkable that a recent document could mention TikTok (particularly given attention by the current administration to the platform). I would imagine some structure could be set up to whitelist discussions of documents legitimately containing the word. BD2412 T 18:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alas, you're right. There's even apparently an Oz character called "Tik-Tok". See this. And "Tiktok" has been mentioned in at least one Executive Order according to these results. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How big is the problem? There will always be spammers and they are not evident much in our main namespace. If we get the occasional bit of unlinked garbage in our talk: space, it is not a killer. I am not seeing it overly in my work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  20:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, I think I've seen maybe two of these, total. But I've temporarily set up an abuse filter to look for it. It has no action so we'll need to check that filter's log to see anything, but if this is a problem of appreciable size we'll have data on it. --Xover (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Pd/1923
I have updated and moved it to, and also moved  to , per. However, is locked and so I would like to ask an admin to move it to  per the same discussion. Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The difference between "-" and "/" is opaque; can we use meaningful template names, that give the user a clue as to what each is meant for? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is usually difficult to get consensus for too complex changes and it is often better to go step by step. So I suggest to rename PD/1923 as asked above and then we can continue discussing e. g. merging PD-US and PD/US into one template. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just reminding about this request. I think it should not take much time. Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I understand Andy Mabbett's point, but this has been a long discussion, and moving it now doesn't preclude moving it later.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick headsup… When moving templates like this it's important to fix up any double redirects: the software doesn't handle double redirects well for templates, leading to the literal text "#REDIRECT PD/US" showing up in mainspaces pages and ebook exports. I fixed the one at Template:PD/1923 (canonical name pre-move was Template:Pd/1923, with lower-case "d"). --Xover (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

doing a global replace anyway. Should be finished in a few days. Probably should write a filter to prompt people to not add into the future. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons that this drew little enthusiasm was the enormity of the task for very little actual benefit. I hope that those who put this into action are helping on the fix. So great times. :-( — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably directed to me: I thought that the only thing to be done is to move the template and fix one or two double redirects. I could have fixed the double redirects too and I am sorry I did not check them after the move was performed. I did not consider the global replacement necessary. Thanks everybody who took part in solving this. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Help:Beginner's guide to copyright and Help:Author pages need updating and to fix them to increment on year. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ with  (or 96) so it'll stay current until 2058 when the 95 year horizon reaches 1963! Inductiveload— talk/contribs 12:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Some additional tasks here: BethNaught (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) (already done) I changed PD-1923 to PD-US in the code of PD/US.
 * 2) (to do) PD-US and PD-anon-US add works to Category:PD-1923 and Category:PD-anon-1923 respectively. Those categories need renaming and the templates updating.
 * ✅ I renamed the two categories and also Category:Author-PD-1923 to Category:Author-PD-US and also fixed the most important links. I also fixed the templates so that they populate the renamed categories. The old categories can IMO be deleted. The renamed categories remain still empty at the moment, but I guess it is only because of the cache reasons. Hope I did everything right. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that all looks fine! It looks like the works have started to move categories, hopefully the caches will update fully soon. As for speedy deleting the old categories, I'm not sure. They might fall under WS:CSD if deleting them is uncontroversial, but given their long history, I wouldn't assert that. BethNaught (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't hard redirect categories, it is just ugly and pretty much should never be done; utilise category redirect. Categories like these should also go through a community discussion at WS:PD if deletion is required.— billinghurst  sDrewth  22:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I did not intend to redirect the categories. The redirects were created automatically after the move and I did not bother about it too much as I was suggesting their deletion anyway. However, these soft redirects are probably a better solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that I am done. The output templates, and categories are updated, with some tidying. I would appreciate someone checking dark corners for things that I may have missed. I am a little over it. There should be ZERO active components in author, main or category namespaces for 1923 things, they should all be in something-US — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I could find:
 * Pd/1923 transclusions in the Translation ns
 * Some calls to Pd-anon-1923 (-> now done)
 * Template:PD-US-1923-abroad, but this is unused and perhaps could be deleted?
 * Some raw uses of the PD-old-NN-1923 series
 * Sorry to bear bad tidings, and thank you for all the work you've done one this. BethNaught (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also do thank for all the work which proved to be much bigger than I had imagined. I have removed a few remaining transclusion of PD-1923 in various talk namespaces. However, if it is not desirable to leave any transclusions of the old and now redirected templates, than another one remaining to solve is PD-anon-1923 which has even more transclusions than Pd-anon-1923 mentioned above by BethNaught :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Partly done, together with bullet "Some calls to Pd-anon-1923" above. Mpaa (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Think that this is done now. Most of the old components needed to have link updates. I must have throttled the servers. I just need to manually fix the remaining works in "The Times", though as they are my old manual transcriptions, I intend to put then into WD, so all should be good. I have deprecated templates, and migrated manual use of some templates to the automated version. We should write some abuse filters that discourage use of the subsidiary parts of and PD/1996. We also better need to reorganise Help:Copyright tags to make these lead the page and dominant being our most used. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Export to Commons—configuration updated
I have updated the configuration file for migrating files to Commons from enWS. If anyone has any issues with their migrations then please let me know with specific information about the issue that you are seeing and I will see what I can do to resolve. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject NLS
A large number of indexes in this hidden category are being marked as “validated,” even though some pages have not been validated. I have fixed some of them, although it appears there are many more that still have this problem. It would be more helpful for an administrator to notify the editors involved. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure this is something that particularly requires an administrator, but…I took a look at the first ten indexes in this Petscan search (intersection of indexes that are in Category:WikiProject NLS and Category:Index Validated) and of these 7 had one or two pages marked as "Problematic" due to a missing image, but were otherwise all Validated. Most of the indexes were marked as validated by, and one by at the NLS.Kathleen: I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind marking these as Validated. Could you elaborate?Courtesy ping and a question to  is this part of the workflow you had sketched out with ? And what are your plans for these images? --Xover (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that it should receive the attention of an administrator, at least. The indexes I found and fixed, perhaps 60 or so, were just those which were recently added to Category:Index Validated. I fear this may be similar to the problem with the Indonesian Wikisource works, where the editors involved are not proofreading/validating a page to the standards required on Wikisource. The main reason I mentioned this here was so that an administrator could correct these changes, and notify the editors who made the mistakes—it would be more appropriate for an administrator to do such, rather than a normal editor such as myself. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC).
 * we never discussed the image element as part of the original workflow - my understanding was that we could validate and transclude without including the images - it wasn't brought up so I suppose we assumed it was not a critical part of the process and more of a nice extra (we don't have any resource to add these in retrosepctively, so not sure what the best approach is now) Gweduni (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Individual pages can be progressed through Proofread to Validated independently, and works can be transcluded before they are complete, but the work as a whole (through the status on the Index: page) should not be marked as Validated until all its component pages have been Validated. That in particular goes for pages marked Problematic due to missing images. And there are several reasons for this, but perhaps most apposite here is that when marked as fully validated the work disappears from maintenance backlogs so there is little chance they will ever get finished, much less in a systematic way. --Xover (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so for now we can keep going as we are as long as we don't set the status on the index page to Validated (for the work as a whole)? Gweduni (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Without going into nuances or the inevitable exceptions… In principle the Progress field of an Index: should not be set to "To be validated" until all its Page: pages have been Proofread, and it should not be set to "Done" until all pages are Validated. But the most critical part is that the Index: isn't marked as "Done" until the work is actually finished. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also some works like Index:Story teller (4).pdf are marked validated, but not all the pages are validated, and the contents page probably isn't even at proofread level, despite being marked so. It's OK if works don't get validated, they can still be "complete" and marked "proofread". It's less ideal if incomplete works are marked validated without actually being validated. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * not sure what is wrong with the contents page above? Gweduni (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time posted the above, the page in question looked like this. --Xover (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ah, can see the problem - will feed back to the team Gweduni (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see from the discussion above this work shouldn't be marked as 'Done' anyway due to the 'Missing Image', but just wanted to apologise for this slightly different issue, this one's my fault. I marked the work as 'Done' while I was editing the index to create the main-page transclusion link, as I wanted to check how things would look when transcluded, and to make sure the sub-page links on the contents page were correct. I didn't realise it would cause a problem and look like these pages hadn't been worked on, sorry, won't do it again! --Annalang13 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no real harm done, as long as the pages get done eventually (and that is certainly not a criticism anyone can level at NLS, the amount of completed work is, as they say, uh-may-zing). It's just in general, a "proofread" page that's not actually proofread may well loiter in that state for years or practically forever, and not even show in the immense backlog of pages that need proofreading.
 * FYI, there's no technical requirement for an Index to be "done", or for individual pages to be "proofread" to be able to transclude to mainspace. The "rules", such as they are, say pages that aren't "proofread" or above shouldn't generally be transcluded, but that is a process thing and not for any technical reason: they're still just pages. A not "proofread" page generally consists of raw OCR or is otherwise not presentable in mainspace, but that's not always true. There are times it's fine to transclude a "not proofread" or "problematic" page, for example if something is just missing and there's no alternative source, or if only one article on a page is proofread. Inductiveload— talk/contribs  18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat
Hi. Lately I have been less involved in Wikisource due to RL, so I would like to resign from my bureaucrat role. As next confirmation would be in March, I am giving this heads-up to the community so there is time to look for a candidate. Thanks Mpaa (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How much bureacratship is there to do on this project? I've been a 'crat on Wikiquote since 2011 (where there is an adminship request once in a blue moon), and would be willing to pick up the role here as well if needed. BD2412 T 03:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the volume of work is all that large (don't underestimate the amount of work Hesperian and Mpaa have been doing, keeping WS:AN running etc., though!), but the tasks there are are rather critical and when you need a `crat you really need a `crat. Having more `crats means a better chance that one is available when a need arises. If you're willing to take it on that would be very welcome news! --Xover (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. It takes a 'crat to declare the outcomes of the monthly evaluations. BD2412 T 17:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Credits to Hesperian, I have mostly been in 'warm standby' config mode, now in cold ... :-) Mpaa (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your service Mpaa; I'll make a note to resign you as 'crat at your March confirmation. Please let us know if you change your mind in the interim.

I too am very busy IRL these days, and my engagement with Wikisource is not what it was. I've mostly stayed on top of monthly confirmations, but I'm not really following community discussions, nor even thinking about other 'crat admin stuff like bot and interface rights.

I'm happy to continue as 'crat for now; but there is definitely a risk for the community in only having a single 'crat who is not very engaged. I highly recommend the community at least elect a replacement for Mpaa... if not multiple new 'crats so that you can stand me down.

Hesperian 03:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to prune the bot accounts?
The following accounts have the +bot flag but have not been active since ~2015, and have listed operators that have similarly not edited on enWS in the same period or are not so active here that it seems likely they will resume bot operations any time soon.

Since bot accounts' edits do not show up in recent changes, and are exempt from some restrictions on high volume editing, they are high value targets for hijacking (full list of permissions here). Inactive and possibly abandoned bot accounts are also high risk of actually being hijacked (for example, a user that has moved on from enWS sells an old computer where the bot account credentials are saved).

Bots who have not edited in 5+ years, and whose bot approval is consequently equally old, are also at significant risk of no longer being up to date with current standards and practices, and cannot safely be assumed to still have consensus for their task (the policy actually says these should have admin-style periodic reconfirmations, but, you know…).

I therefore propose that we prune these 7 bot accounts (of 22 total) by removing the +bot flag and blocking the accounts (with a suitable log message making clear that it is a preventative technical measure only and no form of indication the operator has done anything wrong).


 * 1) (last edit: 2011-04-09) operated by  (last edit: 2016-07-03)
 * 2) (last edit: 2014-01-15) operated by  (last edit: 2018-12-12)
 * 3) (last edit: 2011-08-10) operated by  (last edit: 2018-10-29)
 * 4) (last edit: 2011-04-23) operated by  (last edit: 2018-08-11)
 * 5) (last edit: 2014-09-17) operated by  (last edit: 2020-07-15)
 * 6) (last edit: 2012-03-05) operated by  (last edit: 2020-07-15)
 * 7) (last edit: 2015-04-28) operated by  (last edit: 2016-04-01)

Operators who are still active here or on other projects (e.g. JackPotte and LA2) and either have plans to resume bot operation or want to hold on to the account just in case (for example if the bot is used for ad hoc tasks) should comment to that effect here. I propose that for any operator that's sufficiently active and interested to respond here that should be sufficient grounds to leave the bot account active.

For any bot whose operator is not currently active and where the bot has not edited in ~5 years, I suggest we should require a quick recheck with the community (in WS:S) before resuming operations; but unblocking and re-adding +bot should otherwise be just a simple `crat request. Or put another way, it's the bot's actions that need rechecking, not the mere technical unlocking and adding the +bot flag. --Xover (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (Last time we did this on WS:S.) 1 through 4 and 7 as bots of inactive users I would support the rights removal through inactivity. For 5 and 6, if operators say they expect to use their bot then the rights can be retained, otherwise in lieu of that comment, then remove the rights. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Request move
Hello. Could you please move "Siamese Interim Administrative Charter Act, Buddhist Era 2475 (1932)" to "Translation:Act on Interim Charter for Public Administration of Siam, 2475 Buddhist Era" and change its namespace from "main" to "translation"? Thank you so much. --KhaoNiaoMaMuang (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

✅ The above has been moved. Wikidata item needs to be moved. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The WD items should be updated when you do the moves, or very quickly afterwards. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested in working on this particular backlog, there are about 80+ works (mostly Thai legal documents) that need to be moved from Mainspace to Translation space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone can map out the required conversions from header to translation header then I can run through them. Just too busy to do all the thinking of the conversions. Would be wanting indications of which lines add/remove/change, to make the bot tasking easier. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of them are obvious -,  , etc. The interwiki link   gives you the values for   and  . If   and/or   are omitted, they need to be added as blank parameters. Finally, any instance of   needs to be removed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, please could an admin move Index:The European Magazine volume 87 (January–June 1825).djvu to Index:The European Magazine and London Review - Vol. 87.djvu, following the file on Commons being renamed in line with Index:The European Magazine and London Review - Vol. 1.djvu. Thanks! -- Yodin T 19:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ MarkLSteadman (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! -- Yodin T 21:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)