Jump to content

User talk:Billinghurst/2018

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Spambot

Hi Billinghurst. Please see the thread at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#what is going on in the filter log? spambot?. The disruption is ongoing. Is there any way you can help? Perhaps add something to the title blacklist? Thanks, Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like Ajraddatz has taken care of it. --MRD2014 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #293

chrwikt

Hello there. Wonder if you could check wikt:chr:Special:RecentChanges and see if something can be done with the recent wave spotted there? Apparently the domain they're spamming is quite common (COIBot refuses to do a full report due to db issues). Thanks! —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #294

Wikidata weekly summary #295

Reminder about Blocking consultation

Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on meta now and is in the final days.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. There is still time to share your ideas. You can post to the discussion in any language.

Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. You can also help out by sharing a link to the meta discussion with users on other wikis. Or you can translate the summary of the discussion and share it on another wiki.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #296

Wikidata weekly summary #297

Stho002

When are global locks used and when are global bans used? Because I saw that you were refer steward who unlocked Stho0002 a former administrator with 500.000 contributions but that this user was later globally locked, are such locks within policy and if I were to want to get this user unlocked should I open an RFC or request an unlock? --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 13:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Global locks and global bans. Otherwise, your question should be addressed to a steward.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Restore request

Hello,

Could you please restore Template:Verified account as I am working (slowly) on a proposal to solve this issue.

best,

--AntonierCH(d) 10:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #298

Wikidata weekly summary #299

For info

Had attempts to spam Tiger77 on Commons in the past day or so. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Think that we all did. I umm'd and ahh'd and blacklisted as they were hitting pages at some wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #300

If you get a moment

Can you just glance at the last COIbot one I added. No report as of now and I'm away for a couple of weeks. It's probably nothing but I had a feeling I'd seen it before a time or two - more likely old age! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 17:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #301

Wikidata weekly summary #302

Wikidata weekly summary #303

Ivy R. Smith

That's an LTA, one of their many identity crisis accounts. See JaySmith2018 for the master and some examples of their other work: 1, 2, 3, 4 and I could go on...he's got over 200 accounts at this point. Chrissymad (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not a surprise. Dispassionately responding with boredom will usually be my methodology. They can troll away, whatever, blocking one more doesn't affect the ecology.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #304

Re: Tool or gadget to quickly swap between desktop and mobile view?

I don't know any, no. As far as I know the thing is controlled by means of cookies, which are set with URL parameters provided e.g. by the "mobile view" or "desktop view" link in the footer, like https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Billinghurst&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile --Nemo 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Billingshurst, would you be able to take a look at the message I posted at Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#Help unblocking. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblocked by Stryn SA 13 Bro (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #305

On a personal note

I find what I did hardly combative. It's true, on wikipedia I took part in some endless debates, but this was due to my misapprehension that the one who delivers the best arguments wins. Instead, I was blocked by admins with whom I should not have debated. But I never insulted anyone. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: You asked for an administrator's review of another's action; so I read what you said, and where you said it on Meta, and that was my independent assessment without looking anywhere else. You can like or dislike my assessment, but to dismiss it out of hand because you don't like it is not a great indicator. FWIW I don't know what you said or did at any Wikipedia, and I don't particularly care about the goings-on of some of the bear pits; that had no influence on my opinion of your approach here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello dear Mr. Billinghurst,

I've noticed that you took away my userboxes. However, let me explain my intentions. I'm active on several Wikimedia projects, including ENWB and commons (hopefully the ban on ENWP, which I consider unjustified, will soon be lifted), and my current userpage is transcluded to all these projects. It would cause considerable trouble to update each one of these, so that I prefer to have it transcluded automatically. Given my engagement at Wikibooks, you'll notice that I don't have a lot of time. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I also study mathematics, which is very time-consuming too. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@Mathmensch: Do as you please (within reasonable practice and civility) using {{userbox}} on your user page. Please do not start proliferating meta with userbox templates and categories.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Please return to me the source code of the userboxes, so that I don't have to create anything anew. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #306

A blacklist question if I may

Hi Billinghurst.

Sorry. I have been away from wiki for a while.

I refer to this.

The bot inserted template at the top of the article Froggatt Awards states that it is globally blocked ? Is the template wrong ? Where do I look to see why it was locally blocked so that I can proceed further ?

Regards.

Aoziwe (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: the addition of the domain to the blacklist was reversed due to the negative consequences, then other, though less efficient, means were implemented to manage the spambot abuse.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - I hope what I have done here is okay then ? Aoziwe (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #307

question

hi.how are you. is that template valid?--مصعب (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@مصعب: You are seeing a "my" language page where there is no translation, so the English language (default) shows through. Feel free to follow the link above the template to put in the language of interest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thanks. the purpose of my question is to make sure this template is useful because i don't see it different than this one --مصعب (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
No idea. Better to ask at Meta:Babel, as it is way too late for any lucid thought from me..  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
aha. Is that means that "my" is abbreviation like "ar" for arabic? thanks for answer --مصعب (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, compared with Template:StrategyButton/ar and all the other existing variations at special:prefixindex/Template:StrategyButton.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and request

I removed comments I made about that drama not relevant to here. I just have one request. A banned Wikipedia editor whose website is blacklisted for harassment is misusing his user-page on this wiki as traffic to that website. His name is Rome Viharo. His only edits on this wiki was creating a userpage to influence google searches of his name so his website is advertised. The website Wikipedia we have a problem is blacklisted by Wikipedia, it doxes and attacks Wikipedia & RationalWiki editors. I'm a sysop from the latter and we have an article on Rome Viharo that documents more about his harassment against Wikipedians. It's not appropriate he misuses this wiki for traffic to his website.Largewarhammer (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The page itself is no different from hundreds or thousands of others. In itself I have no scope to delete it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Final request

I'm no longer posting here, but have a final request. Can you delete this and this. The user Abd was recently globally banned by the WMF for harassment, as part of that he was creating LTA "studies" filled with misinformation on another user. Those separate articles were taken down, but he has two "user-data" links still up that still links to the edits; someone else recently blanked them complaining, but they should be completely deleted. Abd deceptively is linking to this on his blog still since there are still edits on that page if you view the history, as well as it comes up on a google search. Is there any chance these here and this link can be deleted completely?Largewarhammer (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That has already been assessed by another administrator, and I have no need to override their decision by discussion at my user page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Information

Hi.

I wish information on this point. If a name entered on the blacklist of metawiki matches the name of an encyclopedic person in the future, can the page on the subject be created? Or is it excluded despite being relevant?--151.19.89.189 10:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This is all covered in the help documentation of the extension. If you have issues with the blacklist then please use the talk page of the blacklist to report any issues.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #308

Wikidata weekly summary #309

Gift

Hi. Not sure if you've noticed, but you're now able to modify global abusefilters yourself as Meta-Wiki sysop. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@MarcoAurelio: Thanks for that information, I call that a great initiative.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. The bad part is that you'll likely get more work, the counter-good part is that we can use your help again in that area after your (sad) departure as steward. Spambots are changing patterns again and having the filters updated to prevent the crap is of utmost importance until they design a system to stop them from even registering, or lower the number at least. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The existing system, including with current spam filters, has been remarkably resilient, and still catches the vast bulk of the shite. What is still needed is the top level prevention of account creation, and captcha avoidance. That appears to be going nowhere, and slowly. The project people who contacted me early this year seem to have disappeared into the ether.  :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I guess it's the same people I've been working with. Yes, their scholarship/project/whatever expired already so they ain't working anymore afaik. I don't know what happened to their work though :-( —MarcoAurelio (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #310

161

Hi billinghurst, I made some adjustments to Special:AbuseFilter/161 to exclude groups (wmf staff, bots, patrollers) and updated the message at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-otheruserpage - since this is now a disallowing filter (effectively adding protection to all base userpages for all but exempted group members). Please review and ensure that I haven't spoiled your intent. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: I am not sure that I am seeing this filter as "my intent", I am trying to reflect the wishes of the community, and allow the functioning of the community for effective global user pages free of vandalism and spam, and still appear a friendly pace. So even if your edits are different to mine yet reflect the community's wishes, then that is around managing PoV.

I don't like having to disallow in what we look to have a more open society, however, at this point in time, disallow would seem to be the only effective means to manage the crap that has appeared, and I hope after a period of quietness we can return to a more open place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

By intent I only referred to the technical aspect, not your "motivation" :D I'm not sure the old filter was working at all - this one MIGHT work in a "warn" mode, not sure. I'll try keeping an eye on it for users that are being helpful that could benefit from "autopatrol". — xaosflux Talk 21:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I was gently saying that I don't own filters, I am not precious about them, and I am not a skilled artisan. [Or with plain-speaking hat ... I am not one to argue over the methodology for skinning rabbits. My intent was simple and mallet-like to stop the shite. Any finesse is welcome.] [Plainer-speaking: At some point when the dickhead gets bored and FRO then maybe we can dial it back. We all have better things to do.]  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

sorry to bother you

Sorry to bother you, you just leave a comment on this topic [1].

May I ask, suppose there is a administrator target to me and delete pages i created on purpose but acted like innocent, suppose he is a sneaky administrator and got some followers to justify for him, suppose other administrators remain silence about this, what is the legit and reasonable way could i do? Who should i talk to?--Jasonnn~zhwiki (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not explaining or forgiving any behaviour by an administrator or by a user. I am saying that a community manages its internal processes, and your request for review and intervention belongs at that community. The community in question should have pages available on how to resolve issues.

The conversation does not belong at that page, and should be shut down when brought there. We can do nothing, resolve nothing, nor answer questions. The local page that you chose is not a soapbox.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Q- Chronic cross wiki vandalism by big IP ranges

Hello Billinghurst, any suggestion for this? --Alaa :)..! 15:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #311

can you check me on this?

Does this look correct? Attempt was to block anything from that host. Jalexander--WMF 02:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF: thumbs up.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #312

User:Belchicks

You need to delete this page again. User recreated. I can't tag the page for speedy deletion because Meta's abuse filter won't let me edit another user's page. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SVTCobra. You should also be able to edit root user pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #313

Wikidata weekly summary #314

CommonsDelinker on Swedish Wikipedia

Hi,

You requested the Swedish Wikipedia user page of CommonsDelinker to be deleted, in order to make place for the global user page. This is to make you aware that the Swedish community is currently having a discussion about very active bots having their presentations mirrored – everyone isn't too happy about the idea of having a tool that edits the wiki daily presenting itself in English, which all users can't be assumed to comfortably understand, and the Translate extension doesn't work with mirrored pages. /Julle (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Julle. Thanks for heads up. I understand that it is a little provocative to dump and run, and I am not trying to set each wiki's policies, and it is an understandable position.

In a conversation with Kaganer at their talk page they indicated that they thought it would be possible to have translations show through, and that would be my desired outcome, and I think that it would benefit all the language pages of the sister wikis. [I have seen lots of very outdated CDL user pages across the wikis as I started the clean-up]. Clearly translated pages are be a much preferred outcome.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, maybe I was mistaken about the translatability – in my experience, it hasn't worked out, but maybe I made a mistake. If we can solve that, the combination of a translated and up-to-date page would probably be preferable, yes. /Julle (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Convertion "CommonsDelinker" page into autotranslated mode

For starting convertion of User:CommonsDelinker page into autotranslated mode, is needs folowing steps:

  1. Move (or copy) current page into subpage like "User:CommonsDelinker/i18n" or "User:CommonsDelinker/text" or any other.
  2. Prepare this subpage for translation, and then mark for translation. As result will be created "/en" subpage.
    Please note: is needs addition "m:" prefix into all links what leads to another meta pages.
  3. Replace User:CommonsDelinker to next code: {{autotranslate|base=User:CommonsDelinker/i18n}} (depends from your translatable subpage name)
  4. This is all ;)

Maybe also add {{Help translate}} (or similar) for invite users to translate into their language.--Kaganer (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #314

User:Incnis Mrsi/Global locks

Hello.
I currently write a draft on global locks, based mostly on my experience. Could you please peer-review it? Then a broader discussion may happen. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #315

GlobalRenameRequest Queue abuse

Hello, can we set an abusefilter or blacklist for (Reason for request) box on Special:GlobalRenameRequest? --Alaa :)..! 15:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello just a note to say that no globalrename integration into abusefilter was not done yet, as this ticket says. phab:T27377 --Framawiki (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you very much!

ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Тегела" in Title blacklist

Hello. "Тегела" is incorrect, as you writed here. Please, fix "Тегела" to "Тегел". Marshmallych 06:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Please put suggestions at Talk:Title blacklist. And it is neither correct, or incorrect, it is what it is, from what was happening at the time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #316

I understand, but...

Regarding this block, people could need to communicate with me. Could you unblock the page, please? --Daniele Pugliesi (WMIT) (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

p.s.: In case vandalisms will continue to happen, what do you suggest to do? --Daniele Pugliesi (WMIT) (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #317

Wikidata weekly summary #318

Deleted template

Hi, Thanks for taking care of {{Former affiliate staff}}, but the intention was only to have Template:Former affiliate staff/text/en deleted to make room for the translations. Can you please undelete the template again. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Done @Axel Pettersson (WMSE):  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #319

Consulting you for help

I have expressed the problem here: Link. Who can solve this problem? You are an admin at meta, can you help me to find the right address? We had the same edit-war with that patrol of Turkish wikipedia on English wikipedia, upon reporting him the patrol quitted edit-war on English wikipedia but on Turkish wikipedia he and his mob prevent me without stating any reason why their inventions should remain on Wikipedia and what is the reason to reject my content. What can we do? --Ruhubelent (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ruhubelent: You can only work with Turkish Wikipedia admins to remove your block.

All rights are determined on the communities as they are self-managing communities according to the local rules at those communities (where such rules do not exist then the global guidance by stewards is applied). Meta admins only manage meta affairs, and assist with some of the global settings, we have no authority at those local wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, Which stewards can I report this issue to? The admin that blocked me messaged my talk page stating "You are blocked due to your actions being against WP." I asked him to point out which of my actions violate Wikipedia, he did not point to any of my actions. He stated I should quit attempting to delete the content I am trying to delete. I am gonna delete the baseless content, I am not gonna quit it. That was all the response I have been able to get. Turkish Wikipedia rules say if admins are on edit-arguement with someone the same admin can not block his adversary but they still ban me. --Ruhubelent (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
@Ruhubelent: You are not listening ... Turkish Wikipedia is a self-managing community. Stewards have no authority to intervene, it is not their role. Your only means for resolution is with that community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood, billinghurst. I was listening but I misunderstood. In short, a wikipedia is a mob-rule community? Administrators can do whatever they want and no way to supervise them? I understand all of them siding with eacch other because the content we have conflict on is a case between a CIA agent and a Turkish journalist. They now are publishing the conflict in favour of Turkish journalist and preventing me from publishing what actually happened. I am writing against that mob's worldview and there is nothing to supervise it if that mob of wikipedia is biased in favour of something? --Ruhubelent (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
No, a Wikipedia is a consensus rule of the community. The community supervises their administrators as administrators act on the consensus of the users. If you want to consider it a mob, go ahead, make your own day. I cannot help you further.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Mob-rules have their consensus. A certian mob has their ideology, has preference on which they all agree and they will go on imposing their wills and there is nothing others can do. As seen from your answer, wikipedia seems to have no difference than that. The only difference may be mobs work in a monarchy-like regime while wikipedia is like a republical mob. Thank you for everything --Ruhubelent (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

re:Global rollback removal

Oh! This is unexpected. Thanks, the flag would make my wiki-life a little bit easier once again. --Ignacio (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Also recommend that you get your IRC cloak back in place, then we can get COIBot to listen to you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I already request a week and a half ago, seems they have a certain delay. And yes, COIBot doesn't answer me :( --Ignacio (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, have you looked at emailing someone? IRC/Group Contacts Those on that list are on IRC, have you pinged them directly?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but I'll try to talk them again. Thanks for the help --Ignacio (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #320

filter 172 false positive

22:52, 10 July 2018: COIBot (talk | contribs | block) triggered filter 172, performing the action "edit" on User:COIBot/LinkReports/zanaflexcgh.com. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: retail drug spam (details | examine)

Sounds like we should let COIBot do the job? :D — regards, Revi 14:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: It will, I created the page afterwards, which circumvents the filter. Pretty certain that I will blacklist the url anyway, which will make it moot.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Spammy stuff

Not around enough to take a balanced view on these though I have b/l'd on Commons. To me these two COI ones look like they are abused Wiki but another view would be welcome. See here and here. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 11:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Herbythyme: At Talk:spam blacklist use Template:BLRequestRegex on trainingzone.co.uk/search as it is being abused, though not through CoI, and we don't need the search url. I am keeping a record of those abused and not yet blacklisted at user talk:COIBot/Poke.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #321

Wikidata weekly summary #322

Wikidata weekly summary #323

Legal/Legal Policies

Hi Billinghurst. Could you unprotect Legal/Legal Policies in order I can add "translate" tag, so that, the content of this page may be translated. After, that, I think you could reprotect this page (I will let you know once it will be done). Pamputt (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pamputt: Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pamputt: still going?  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I wanted to finish to "hide" some http links but I will not have time before one week so you can protect the page. I will ping you if I want to modify again this page. Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

comment

i guess your administrator colleagues are not fussy about who they rub shoulders with having allowed you into thier midst.we will get to meet before long and you shall have the opportunity to explain your actions then although your actions do speak quite clearly of your nature and intent which are both cowardly and loathsome. Much like the company you are keeping i suppose. Your day will oon come to fruition with GLS as well. You see she has a sickness with no cure but to repeat the same over and over. You are the culmination of a very long line of precedent setting priors.all will become clear with time. Gd l — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubleysam2 (talk)

Thanks for your feedback, maybe one day it will make sense to me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

User page of Mha3131

Hi! please delete User page of Mha3131. It look ridiculous. I just want to say why you placed Welcome to Meta! on there, and not on its User talk page? Web SourceContent Management System 09:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #324

User rights

Hi billinghurst, could you please grant a spoonful of right, so that I'm allowed to add tags like this one? Thank you! Best, --Achim (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Achim55: Absolutely, and to note that as I actively watch and promote trusted wikimedians based on that filter, you would have got them within the next 24 hours. It is a shame that we cannot pick up xwiki rights, and grant permissions that way; maybe next year.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Filter

Hi Billinghurst, short question: You have blocked a Polish website (bankier.pl/forum). May I ask, why. Or is there a link to a disc ? rgds --Wistula (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Wistula: It was being actively spammed crosswiki over a couple of months, I cannot recall the context. From looking at the COIBot xwiki report, it was getting bad over a couple of weeks, and from my checks at the time it would have shown that we had no crosswiki use of that domain with that specific url part,[2] and being /forum/, I probably just put it to bed. I cannot say that I have seen it spammed for a while so we could look to remove it, or plWP can add components to pl:Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thx, not so important, I found an interesting article there (may be a copyright issue, of course), the website Bankier is serious, the forum eventually not. I do not need, just curiosity. rgds --Wistula (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

COIBot settings

Hi Billinghurst, could you add me to COIBot "grantedusers" list?. Best regards --Igna (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #325

Wikidata weekly summary #326

Wikidata weekly summary #327

Wikidata weekly summary #328

Wikidata weekly summary #329

Wikidata weekly summary #330

Wikidata weekly summary #331

User:Lokmanamirul (ms)

It seems that he is using the site as reference for the sport ranking/achievement for Malaysian Cup. I ignore it previously because there is not many site that have that kind of informations. Do you think I should blacklist the site? Yosri (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yosri: moving conversation to User:COIBot/XWiki/arenasukan.net as a better place to record.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #332

Wikidata weekly summary #333

Wikidata weekly summary #334

Wikidata weekly summary #335

Wikidata weekly summary #336

The Community Wishlist Survey

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

IP - 46.134.18.229; see also - User_talk:Tegel#Ublock Thanks --DanielloFlorenco (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@DanielloFlorenco: There is a significant user issue in the IP range 46.134.0.0/16 so there is a soft block on that range at Meta which means IP editors are blocked. When you are logged into your WMF account, then you should be able edit unhindered. I see that there is a global block on that range which you have addressed to Tegel and he has modified that block to the same conditions requiring users to be logged in. You may also wish to consider applying for an IP block exemption at SRGP which the stewards can allocate to assist you around their blocks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I can edit pages on Wikipedia, but I can not edit your talk page without VPN. It isn't a problem, cause I not often edit meta Wiki. Thanks a lot, thank you for fast feedback, --DanielloFlorenco (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@DanielloFlorenco: oh, I see the issue. I had placed a soft block, though another administrator changed that to a hard block. I have dropped the block back to a soft block. I do recommend that you seek that global IPBE as a means to not get caught again. I will make set an IPBE on your local account to assist here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot, you're the best. Thank you very much for help, it's already working. Thank you again --DanielloFlorenco (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Billinghurst

Thank you for deleting Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Miscellaneous/A special NavBar for Special:ExpandTemplates. I'm not sure if you noticed the comment I included with the request, but I was hoping for a slightly different outcome, overall. If you'd rather, you can userfy the page and its history to me and I'll do the other things. I appreciate your assistance.John Cline (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Text is at User:John Cline/sandbox. If you stick a speedy delete tag and are the only editor, then the fine detail is unlikely to get read, and you will get your overarching request. I don't even need to be on the page to see your request, check the file history and delete it. If you want something moved, then move it, and tag the redirects for deletion. If you are needing admin intervention, then M:RFH is the place for such requests.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand; and apologize for my error. Best regards.John Cline (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #337

Wikidata weekly summary #338

Some problem

User_talk:0格格不入,User:Advogato2,User_talk:Advogato2,User_talk:Advogato4,User:ET4Eva,User:NumCinq,User_talk:NumCinq,User:Zhwp-org,User_talk:Zhwp-org is not change to locked global account.--MCC214Talk with me#Contributions with me 05:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be concerned about that. I was doing it where there was an existing page, rather than deleting the page. If they are non-existent pages then it is okay to leave them that way. We don't want to create trophies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

idwikisource GS block

Hello, is it by mistake? --Alaa :)..! 12:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Did I? Shit, most definitely not meant. Sorry Praxidicae  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #339

Deletion

Hi, can you restore the Whose Knowledge?/VisibleWikiWomen/Online edit-a-thon/Oxford Editathon/ please.

This is a separate event from the Whose Knowledge?/VisibleWikiWomen/Online edit-a-thon.

Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Battleofalma: Done, though now at Whose Knowledge?/VisibleWikiWomen/Online edit-a-thon/Oxford Editathon without the terminating forward slash.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Battleofalma (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Web SourceContent & Webinar Didit – same as locked accounts

Hi, Billinghurst! I have much doubt regarding this situation of global contribuitor, after deletion of global user page of locked Webinar Didit. Could also please delete User:Web SourceContent, a global user page of another locked account? Thanks! 109.102.201.138 11:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Matters for meta administrators should be addressed to all administrators. Please use Meta:RFH or Meta:RfD rather than at my talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #340

50.197.156.42

Hey there! I'm not sure why this IP address was blocked. It's currently being used by attendees of WikiCite. Could you tell me what the block was for? Thanks! (I'm also on IRC as tzatziki right now.) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): ack and ugh ... apologies. I was coming out of the blacklist log, and couldn't follow a straight line (extenuating circumstances, though that isn't helpful). Removed. 23:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you for the quick fix! Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries, it happens :) Thanks! Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Learning Quarterly: November 2018

L&E Newsletter / Volume 5 / Issue 17 / November 2018
Learning Quarterly

Stay tuned
blogs, events
& more!

Wikidata weekly summary #341

Query

Hi, can you take a look at these modules. I don't think they are of scope here. Thanks much. Didn't use wikilinks is to tell you they are from the same user.--Cohaf (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Numbers of out of scope components from the user. Managed and noted with user.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Welcomed. Thanks for assistance. It's a user from my homewiki and I will also be following up with them. --Cohaf (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
(-: and probably in a better manner. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I will try my best.--Cohaf (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

RFL/Wikisource Literary Chinese

Thank you for your comment. I was going to stop the current discussion today or tomorrow anyway, and try to refocus it. It's not such a simple question. At a fundamental level, the language question is something like this:

  • Stating this request using a European language analogy, putting Modern French in the role of Modern Chinese: The opponents of this project say that Literary Chinese is akin to Old French, so at first preference, any documents in Old French would be put into French Wikisource. The proponents of this project say that Literary Chinese is akin to Latin, which has many descendants and is not the direct ancestor of any language. So there should be a separate Latin Wikisource, and documents should go there. Purely on a language basis, the proponents' argument is probably valid—though one potentially can argue it the other way, too.

I like "dog's breakfast", an expression I did not previously know. The main cause of that mess is that the principal proponent (a) doesn't have good English skills, and (b) seems singularly unable/unwilling to hear that there are facts on the ground, already—namely that there is a lot of lzh content already in place at zhwikisource.

Leaving aside the question of eligibility of lzh for any other type of project, I could see that a potential lzh community that would need to include Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. along with Chinese might like some independent editorial control over such a project. But this is Wikisource, which means that the basic texts ought to be pretty fixed, and it shouldn't really matter what wiki the document lives in.

  • To me, the only question of a complication is whether zhwikisource is being compelled somehow—I'll leave the "somehow" to your imagination, though you'll understand immediately what I mean—to exclude certain documents (or to censor/edit certain documents). Then having a project independent of zhwikisource would be useful.

So, as I said, I was probably going to close the current discussion today or tomorrow, and try to refocus on whether or not there is a need for a more narrowly focused lzhwikisource independent of zhwikisource. Question for you is simple: When I do that, do you mind if I reproduce your comment at the top of the "Second Discussion" section I will create? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Thanks for the contact.

Coming from an English Wikisource background, my initial thoughts were that we determined there that Old English and Middle English works belonged at English Wikisource, not at a new wiki, due to lack of editors and dispersal of works, and the actual numbers. We discussed that Old English is suitably different from modern English, especially with the varied influences of Latin, French, German and Norse "invaders" through time, though it should not matter, there were means within the wiki to manage those differences.

I think that your separation of the two aspects is a reasonable approach to look at what would be a viable corpus of works, and presenting option A (within zhWS) or option B (ancient language across broad geographic area and cultures) as focus of discussion. Then if lzh is seen as suitably different, then does it progress to its own separate wiki, or is it part of mulWS. Small communities start up in the incubator and progress outwards when they have a community that needs to separate. If it is part of mulWS, then is that a win, or can zhWS otherwise cater for lzh components within its wiki.

So the questions that I was going to ask there were:

  1. Are there sufficient current native speakers of literary Chinese to justify a separate wiki, rather than are there sufficient existing works to justify a separate wiki. I am not certain that the existing proposal suitably understood/addressed that aspect. I would also reflect the roaring success (not!) of laWS. [There is a lot of work to maintain a community and in my experience stretching too thin means death].
  2. If there are existing "lzh" works within the existing zhWS how is the current system and structure failing those works and that language, what accommodations could be made within the community to highlight these works and attend to their transclusion.
  3. How would separating zh and lzh works lead to a better corpus, better tools, and a better community
  4. If the community is created how the migration of works would occur, as to this point of time we have not have the same edition of a works in multiple places. So part of this conversation needs to consider what would be the criteria for where the work belongs, and the criteria around which versions belong where. If that cannot be determined, or there is no absolute clarity, then what difference are we actually fighting.

This has to be more than a discussion about the works of a time and a period. This is primarily about a language community producing works of a language, and is lzhWS viable.

Noting that that is no closed Chinese-language Wikisources, the two languages closed were angWS and htWS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back to me. The fact that you have WS experience is helpful; mostly, I do not.

Just to make a semantic note on one issue, no one is really a "native speaker" of Literary Chinese in 2018. But I think you and I can agree that we both mean people who can read, write and understand it fairly fluently.

The more you lay this out, the more I am seeing some clarity in this mess. First a comment, then some background, then some trial points I would run by you.

  • Comment. I suspect that for the most part the lack of success of Latin Wikisource—which surprised me a little—is for the reasons you say. I see enough of that in the various test projects I shepherd on Incubator. But I suppose one other significant issue here may be that most important works in Latin are long in the public domain, and may well be accessible elsewhere. It's not as if Latin Wikisource is doing much in the way of scooping up works as they come off copyright. If that's the case, though, some of the success of an lzhWS may depend on whether such documents are broadly available elsewhere. I don't know that they are as available as Latin works probably are, but all the same it seems many are ... including many on zhWS.
  • Background. The OP, User:Bobo alcazar, started creating lzh content on oldwikisource. When I asked him why his content would not be more properly located at zhWS, he gave me the whole story about how lzh is more like Latin, a different language, etc. On its face, that claim is probably fairly correct. So I told the user to create an RFL on Meta, and the result is what you see. My initial thought was that OP's argument was a reasonable one. And in a way it is. But I've also come to learn that there is a lot of lzh content on zhWS already. And I don't see a good reason to start allowing a whole lot of duplication here. So I think my job, at this point, is to determine if there is actually an unserved community, and then to see if there is a need for a separate lzhWS (certainly for now on oldwikisource) to serve it.
If there were no zhWS, there would be enough of a writing community to justify an lzhWS. I don't think I want to address that question of yours directly, because people will contribute where they wish to contribute. Rather, I think I would try to focus "Second Discussion" as follows. ("You" here is addressed to participants there, not actually you.)
  • Trial Point (to question 2): Leave aside for a minute the question of whether you feel that lzh is different enough from Modern Chinese to justify a separate project per policy. There is a lot of lzh content in zhWS. Are there problems with it? If so, what are the problems? Can the zhWS community find ways to address those problems? How would a brand-new lzhWS project be able to address those problems better than an established zhWS could?
  • Trial Point (to questions 3 and 4, and maybe there is a more delicate way to put this): More specifically, are there works that are systematically being excluded from zhWS or modified from the original in zhWS? This could be for political reasons, nationalistic reasons, historical reasons, copyright reasons, or any other reasons. Is there no chance of those issues being resolved within the zhWS community?
    In particular, can Korean, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc. writers contribute equally, or are their contributions less welcome? (Please give examples either way.)

If we weren't talking about China, I'd probably have an easy time saying no to this. But I'm just suspicious enough of the possibility of censorship that I'm not sure whether to close off this possible safety valve. So subject to being convinced otherwise by the discussion, I would lean toward a solution along these lines:

  • Always try to contribute at zhWS first.
  • If you cannot, contribute to lzhWS (at oldwikisource).
  • Duplication of sources not allowed unless there are serious editorial differences.

Objectively, that's probably the right way to go. Strictly enforcing would be a headache, of course. In reality, though, even without strict enforcement, it would probably successfully kick the can down the road a bit, until one of the following happens:

  • Interest in lzh on mul.WS fades away.
  • lzh on mul.WS approaches approvability, in which case
    • When that happens, all or much is folded into zhWS at the time, or
    • Some is folded into zhWS at that time, and the rest stays in mul.WS, or
    • There is little to fold into zhWS, and lzhWS can be approved.

Well, that was lengthy. But I would appreciate your thoughts. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment Comment We already know that lzh content is accepted and acceptable at zhWP (presuming that it is in the "L"zh language rather than a modern form of what was an lzh work), so it is a situation that there needs to be a stroooong case to move the works to a separated community.

  • Are lzh-type works at koWP, viWP already, and would need to be moved to a new community or are they customised for the language communities?
  • The conversation around censorship cannot be pertinent to how we design a language wiki.

I don't have the current capacity to more fully propagate a fuller argument, and the more I type, the more that I just haven't seen a practical argument to why this would happen successfully, and we are not even at the community-level resources and overhead to do this. As you know managing and building a community is significant, if there is not a ground swell within zhWS that something is wrong, and that the works are not welcomed, then this is a dead argument.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree. (I might have added even one more "o".) I don't think the chances are very good that we/I will end up approving this, even for narrow purposes, and none at all for broad purposes. But on the off chance that some of China's ... shall we say, content restriction policies ... are bleeding over into Wikisource, I wanted to go out of my way to give proponents a chance to make a case. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no issues with having a lucid proposal for discussion; and while I could have, I didn't dismiss the original out of hand, and instead commented how I did. Any it is not the separation that concerns me, it is having a community to guarantee success.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

dvwiki

I'm having a hard time responding there because of the L - R difference but regarding this, it's a known global problem. I don't have access to the global private filters but it's been long known on enwiki. Also if you wouldn't mind, please switch that to private. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Also forgot to @Billinghurst: ping you. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: no need to ping me here, it is watched. Re LTR I usually type it in notepad++ then paste. <shrug> Re the filter, talk to There'sNoTime , they reactivated it. Re abuse filters, apply for Abuse filter helpers right, presumably at SRP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

RFL/Wikisource Literary Chinese

Thank you for your comment. I was going to stop the current discussion today or tomorrow anyway, and try to refocus it. It's not such a simple question. At a fundamental level, the language question is something like this:

  • Stating this request using a European language analogy, putting Modern French in the role of Modern Chinese: The opponents of this project say that Literary Chinese is akin to Old French, so at first preference, any documents in Old French would be put into French Wikisource. The proponents of this project say that Literary Chinese is akin to Latin, which has many descendants and is not the direct ancestor of any language. So there should be a separate Latin Wikisource, and documents should go there. Purely on a language basis, the proponents' argument is probably valid—though one potentially can argue it the other way, too.

I like "dog's breakfast", an expression I did not previously know. The main cause of that mess is that the principal proponent (a) doesn't have good English skills, and (b) seems singularly unable/unwilling to hear that there are facts on the ground, already—namely that there is a lot of lzh content already in place at zhwikisource.

Leaving aside the question of eligibility of lzh for any other type of project, I could see that a potential lzh community that would need to include Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. along with Chinese might like some independent editorial control over such a project. But this is Wikisource, which means that the basic texts ought to be pretty fixed, and it shouldn't really matter what wiki the document lives in.

  • To me, the only question of a complication is whether zhwikisource is being compelled somehow—I'll leave the "somehow" to your imagination, though you'll understand immediately what I mean—to exclude certain documents (or to censor/edit certain documents). Then having a project independent of zhwikisource would be useful.

So, as I said, I was probably going to close the current discussion today or tomorrow, and try to refocus on whether or not there is a need for a more narrowly focused lzhwikisource independent of zhwikisource. Question for you is simple: When I do that, do you mind if I reproduce your comment at the top of the "Second Discussion" section I will create? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: Thanks for the contact.

Coming from an English Wikisource background, my initial thoughts were that we determined there that Old English and Middle English works belonged at English Wikisource, not at a new wiki, due to lack of editors and dispersal of works, and the actual numbers. We discussed that Old English is suitably different from modern English, especially with the varied influences of Latin, French, German and Norse "invaders" through time, though it should not matter, there were means within the wiki to manage those differences.

I think that your separation of the two aspects is a reasonable approach to look at what would be a viable corpus of works, and presenting option A (within zhWS) or option B (ancient language across broad geographic area and cultures) as focus of discussion. Then if lzh is seen as suitably different, then does it progress to its own separate wiki, or is it part of mulWS. Small communities start up in the incubator and progress outwards when they have a community that needs to separate. If it is part of mulWS, then is that a win, or can zhWS otherwise cater for lzh components within its wiki.

So the questions that I was going to ask there were:

  1. Are there sufficient current native speakers of literary Chinese to justify a separate wiki, rather than are there sufficient existing works to justify a separate wiki. I am not certain that the existing proposal suitably understood/addressed that aspect. I would also reflect the roaring success (not!) of laWS. [There is a lot of work to maintain a community and in my experience stretching too thin means death].
  2. If there are existing "lzh" works within the existing zhWS how is the current system and structure failing those works and that language, what accommodations could be made within the community to highlight these works and attend to their transclusion.
  3. How would separating zh and lzh works lead to a better corpus, better tools, and a better community
  4. If the community is created how the migration of works would occur, as to this point of time we have not have the same edition of a works in multiple places. So part of this conversation needs to consider what would be the criteria for where the work belongs, and the criteria around which versions belong where. If that cannot be determined, or there is no absolute clarity, then what difference are we actually fighting.

This has to be more than a discussion about the works of a time and a period. This is primarily about a language community producing works of a language, and is lzhWS viable.

Noting that that is no closed Chinese-language Wikisources, the two languages closed were angWS and htWS.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for getting back to me. The fact that you have WS experience is helpful; mostly, I do not.

Just to make a semantic note on one issue, no one is really a "native speaker" of Literary Chinese in 2018. But I think you and I can agree that we both mean people who can read, write and understand it fairly fluently.

The more you lay this out, the more I am seeing some clarity in this mess. First a comment, then some background, then some trial points I would run by you.

  • Comment. I suspect that for the most part the lack of success of Latin Wikisource—which surprised me a little—is for the reasons you say. I see enough of that in the various test projects I shepherd on Incubator. But I suppose one other significant issue here may be that most important works in Latin are long in the public domain, and may well be accessible elsewhere. It's not as if Latin Wikisource is doing much in the way of scooping up works as they come off copyright. If that's the case, though, some of the success of an lzhWS may depend on whether such documents are broadly available elsewhere. I don't know that they are as available as Latin works probably are, but all the same it seems many are ... including many on zhWS.
  • Background. The OP, User:Bobo alcazar, started creating lzh content on oldwikisource. When I asked him why his content would not be more properly located at zhWS, he gave me the whole story about how lzh is more like Latin, a different language, etc. On its face, that claim is probably fairly correct. So I told the user to create an RFL on Meta, and the result is what you see. My initial thought was that OP's argument was a reasonable one. And in a way it is. But I've also come to learn that there is a lot of lzh content on zhWS already. And I don't see a good reason to start allowing a whole lot of duplication here. So I think my job, at this point, is to determine if there is actually an unserved community, and then to see if there is a need for a separate lzhWS (certainly for now on oldwikisource) to serve it.
If there were no zhWS, there would be enough of a writing community to justify an lzhWS. I don't think I want to address that question of yours directly, because people will contribute where they wish to contribute. Rather, I think I would try to focus "Second Discussion" as follows. ("You" here is addressed to participants there, not actually you.)
  • Trial Point (to question 2): Leave aside for a minute the question of whether you feel that lzh is different enough from Modern Chinese to justify a separate project per policy. There is a lot of lzh content in zhWS. Are there problems with it? If so, what are the problems? Can the zhWS community find ways to address those problems? How would a brand-new lzhWS project be able to address those problems better than an established zhWS could?
  • Trial Point (to questions 3 and 4, and maybe there is a more delicate way to put this): More specifically, are there works that are systematically being excluded from zhWS or modified from the original in zhWS? This could be for political reasons, nationalistic reasons, historical reasons, copyright reasons, or any other reasons. Is there no chance of those issues being resolved within the zhWS community?
    In particular, can Korean, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese, etc. writers contribute equally, or are their contributions less welcome? (Please give examples either way.)

If we weren't talking about China, I'd probably have an easy time saying no to this. But I'm just suspicious enough of the possibility of censorship that I'm not sure whether to close off this possible safety valve. So subject to being convinced otherwise by the discussion, I would lean toward a solution along these lines:

  • Always try to contribute at zhWS first.
  • If you cannot, contribute to lzhWS (at oldwikisource).
  • Duplication of sources not allowed unless there are serious editorial differences.

Objectively, that's probably the right way to go. Strictly enforcing would be a headache, of course. In reality, though, even without strict enforcement, it would probably successfully kick the can down the road a bit, until one of the following happens:

  • Interest in lzh on mul.WS fades away.
  • lzh on mul.WS approaches approvability, in which case
    • When that happens, all or much is folded into zhWS at the time, or
    • Some is folded into zhWS at that time, and the rest stays in mul.WS, or
    • There is little to fold into zhWS, and lzhWS can be approved.

Well, that was lengthy. But I would appreciate your thoughts. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment Comment We already know that lzh content is accepted and acceptable at zhWP (presuming that it is in the "L"zh language rather than a modern form of what was an lzh work), so it is a situation that there needs to be a stroooong case to move the works to a separated community.

  • Are lzh-type works at koWP, viWP already, and would need to be moved to a new community or are they customised for the language communities?
  • The conversation around censorship cannot be pertinent to how we design a language wiki.

I don't have the current capacity to more fully propagate a fuller argument, and the more I type, the more that I just haven't seen a practical argument to why this would happen successfully, and we are not even at the community-level resources and overhead to do this. As you know managing and building a community is significant, if there is not a ground swell within zhWS that something is wrong, and that the works are not welcomed, then this is a dead argument.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree. (I might have added even one more "o".) I don't think the chances are very good that we/I will end up approving this, even for narrow purposes, and none at all for broad purposes. But on the off chance that some of China's ... shall we say, content restriction policies ... are bleeding over into Wikisource, I wanted to go out of my way to give proponents a chance to make a case. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no issues with having a lucid proposal for discussion; and while I could have, I didn't dismiss the original out of hand, and instead commented how I did. Any it is not the separation that concerns me, it is having a community to guarantee success.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

dvwiki

I'm having a hard time responding there because of the L - R difference but regarding this, it's a known global problem. I don't have access to the global private filters but it's been long known on enwiki. Also if you wouldn't mind, please switch that to private. Thanks! Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Also forgot to @Billinghurst: ping you. ;) Praxidicae (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: no need to ping me here, it is watched. Re LTR I usually type it in notepad++ then paste. <shrug> Re the filter, talk to There'sNoTime , they reactivated it. Re abuse filters, apply for Abuse filter helpers right, presumably at SRP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #342

Misleading usernames

68.39.274. 138 was a spoof account (or whatever). Tropicalkitty (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this thread?

Hi! Could you take a look at this thread?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_help

It involves one of your edits.

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Have I been hacked?

I found the page on this project only by chance. I did not add that crass message that has aparently hanging around here for 2 years. I did leave the disclaimer at the bottom of the page a few minutes before I saw your message to me here. I have asked for an investigation into this at WP:ANI Sorry about any trouble this has caused for MediaWiki. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You removed an edit by Cliffewiki, and I returned it. There was nothing crass about their edit, they supported your proposal in the endorsement section. I cn see that bit that you complained about and that was added when the proposal was created. If you believe that your account has been hacked, please change your password.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I am sure I have never, myself made any opinion in these pages and I just do not edit inside templates. I should also apologize for leaving my disclaimer a few minutes ago at the foot of that page, I didn't even realize an ancillary discussion page might be involved. Is it possible that since I have never registered an account here that someone could have just used "Hamster Sandwich" of their own volition? Once again, my apologies for any inconvenience this has caused you. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no ancillary discussion page,so it would seem that you have issues navigating the history of the page. That was the submission made in your name, by this account. You were either in control of your account in 2016 and made the comment; or you were not. If you think that the page is redundant, then, as with all wikis, nominate it for deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the page in question, if, as you state at enWP, it was not your proposal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #343

Query

Not commenting on merits of granting, but your not done reason is a little weird "Granting of permissions are not handled on this page. ". Isn't that page used for granting of local meta MMS, patroller as well as uploader rights? Thanks.--Cohaf (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Noted, shall we have a dedicated PERM page? Just wondering.--Cohaf (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #344

Thanks for AbuseFilter 195

Thank you very much for installing global AbuseFilter 195. It seems to work very fine in preventing a spam account. In German Wikibooks, there are 7 warnings since 2018-12-28 14:38 (CET) – no spammer tried to create an account more than one time. Good luck for all your works, Juetho (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Juetho: unintended consequence, we were fighting off the creation of 16000 odd accounts at mediawikiwiki. You are correct that it also picks up our normally spambots; it is also picking up some legitimate account creations, so the stewards will need to make a decision on whether it is retained.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Strategy pages and protecting by other means

Hi. Good idea! "(WMF)"-like and sysops sounds fine. In my opinion, we should restrict edits by users not recognized as trusted, and that's all. On Meta, there isn't any trusted group broader than sysops, is there? Ideally, some day, a filter like "sysops on any wiki + affiliate capacity" should be added.

BTW, how is it possible to set filter "WMF+sysops"? On Special:ProtectedPages, I can only see full, semi, translators and centralnotice, and centralnotice. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): Abusefilter, not page protection, restrict editing based on regex of user_name or member of a group. We can utilise the autopatrolled flag if that is preferred, it is allocated by a sysop here. We already have that as a combination in Special:AbuseFilter/161 to restrict the editing of user: ns pages. It is about identifying exactly the specific pages, or the basepagename if we have parent and children subpages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)