Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
1 (2015 – late 2016)
2 (late 2016–xxxx)
Shortcut:
WS:AN

Welcome to the Administrators' Noticeboard. This space is for anyone who might need an administrator ("sysop") for actions such as protecting a page, deleting spam, or blocking vandals. For general conversation, see Wikispecies:Village Pump. Start a new conversation.



Criteria for speedy deletion[edit]

Please see Wikispecies:Criteria for speedy deletion and add your thoughts and ideas to its talk page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 14:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

Deletion of content[edit]

Hi. Please, can you delete the contributions of this IP address? This content is outside of the scope of Wikispecies. Also see log of deletion on meta and MediaWiki. Thanks. Ks-M9 (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

Done. Moreover, IP address blocked for one day. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please check out this poll[edit]

@Accassidy, Andyboorman, Ark, Benedikt, Circeus, Dan Koehl, EncycloPetey:
@Faendalimas, Franz Xaver, Geni, Hector Bottai, Keith Edkins, Koavf, MKOliver:
@MPF, Mariusm, Maxim, Murma174, Neferkheperre, OhanaUnited, Open2universe:
@PeterR, Pigsonthewing, Totipotent, Uleli, UtherSRG, Wikiklaas:

Dear fellow admins, please check out this poll regarding a request for bureaucratship. Thank you. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC).

Bot tagged AWB account?[edit]

Couldn't the AWB issues be dealt with through creating a bot tagged AWB account? Geni (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed they could, and according to the Wikimedia sock puppetry policies that would not constitute as inappropriate socking even if Koafv were to run both his "human" account as well as the "AWB account" at the same time. On the contrary: as it is considered a legitimate use of a suck puppet, it is actually encouraged. Requests for bot approval can be made here. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC).
I agree. Create a bot account and use AWB on that account. While some may see it as an unnecessary reason to request for bureaucratship, it does indicate your willingness to deal with approvals and issues in this area and therefore my questions will be focusing on this area. Given that there has been historic controversy over bots performing tasks, what are your thoughts if an account without a bot flag performing functions at a rate or pattern that resemble a bot? What about accounts which have a bot flag but performing edits outside of the approved scope? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: The nice thing about AWB is that it can be easily reverted, so if there were some problem or discrepancy with bot or bot-like actions, then they can be undone easily. Non-bot accounts should have a flood flag and unless they are doing something entirely uncontroversial (e.g. fixing misspelled categories), they should have a clear consensus—otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time. Edits outside scope can still be useful (e.g. Unicodifying pages or subst:ing BASEPAGENAME), so even some small edits which are technically outside of scope are not a problem as such. If a bot is making some change outside of scope and policy, then I would have to ask why? Is this a mistake? A misunderstanding? Did someone accidentally port over rules from Wikipedia and post them here? My assumption would be that anyone using a bot out of scope would have some kind of miscommunication because it would just be a waste of time to make [x] thousand edits to be reverted. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
— All of the above edits in this thread were copied from Wikispecies:Bureaucrats.

Interesting and important questions and opinions. Personally I prefer a situation where bot flagged accounts are restricted to perform bot related functions only, and where user accounts without a bot flag never do them. Unfortunately there are many cases where it seems that a bot might do a fine job all by its own, but when human intervention is more or less constantly required. For instance the "Create Redirect" function implemented by User:Rillke/createRedirects.js works beautifully when run manually, but would probably mess up a lot of redirects if it were running as a bot. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC).

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Breaking:

Please see announcement and discussion at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: There is also more documentation at mw:Extension:OATHAuth and mw:Wikimedia Security Team. I know this is coming soon globally and I read that in case you are locked out somehow, a member of the technical staff can reset your password. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A working system for two-factor authentication is important for any and all sites where users log in, and Wikimedia is no exclusion. However, it does create some new and unwanted hurdles, and a way to securely reset user passwords without the need for 2FA will be important. At least at this point, before the system is fully mature. I don't think the data- and user integrity will be at risk, if tech staff can reset user passwords without actually getting access to the passwords themselves (old and new). But I guess (and hope!) that's already the case, using password hashing etc – and regardless of two-factor authentication? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

More and to some extent updated information can be found at Meta:Help:Two-factor authentication. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC).

Requirements for requesting elevated user rights[edit]

I propose we develop an official minimum requirements policy for bureaucrat- and adminship requests, in order to curb more or less pointless requests such as this one and this one. We can use Meta's Policy for requesting adminship as a starting point, for example. Ideas and thoughts? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: Some factors that come to mind include: length of editing here and at WMF projects in general, participation in discussion/policy, background with taxonomy, and language capacity (it would be nice to have a more multi-lingual team but it's also handy if the person knows English, as it's the lingua franca here). I don't know of an exact ratio of all of those elements but they all seem important in some measure. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

My suggestions are:

  1. At least 500 WS edits.
  2. A "clean" wiki record (no blocks, warnings etc.).
  3. Reasonable English knowledge.
  4. Reasonable knowledge of taxonomic standards.
  5. Participation in discussions/votes.
  6. Getting a go ahead from a crat. Mariusm (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I can agree only to the first of these points, but some of the other points cannot be made clear without an examination (3, 4) or don't have clear criteria (5) for its fulfillment. Concerning point 2, I myself didn't have a clean record, having been warned by Thorpe. I am opposing also to the last point. That's on one line with the political system in Iran, where they have pre-selection of political candidates by religious authorities. In my opinion, we can expect that a minimum of WS edits is a prerequisite, but the rest should be open to the vote. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like you to also consider a couple of points borrowed from the Meta guidelines.
  1. Have a user page on WS.
  2. Have a valid contact address (either a confirmed email address in preferences, or a valid email address on the user page).
I must agree with Franz about point 6, but will add concerns about 2, as I would also fail as was warned by the same rogue ex-admin. The others are reasonable but will need clarification. Perhaps this could be phased as questions to prospective candidates, such as;
  1. Do you think your knowledge of the English language is good enough to both understand the scientific literature commonly found on WS and grasp the nuances of the discussions found at the Pump?
  2. Are you happy that you are able to adhere to the taxonomic standards and codes of nomenclature relevant to those organisms that interest you?
I would have to think on about the participation point, as a person may bring additional skills, such as coding for bots, but not want to participate in discussions on policy or dispute. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion Mariusm's points No. 1 and 3–5 are all good, although I have not yet made up my mind on details such as the actual number of edits, etc. A few notes on points 2 and 6 though. As for "a clean wiki record", at least two things are important.
  • First of all: Many, many trusted users known to make legit edits have at least a warning and perhaps also a block or two in their closet. A lot of users have been warned at some point, most often due to honest mistakes or misunderstandings. An inadvertent click on the wrong link or button might render a very bad result – but it's easily done, especially when using the mobile editing GUI. While a warning of some sort may be the proper respond in those cases, a lifelong ban from adminship certainly isn't. Personally I have received very few warnings, but I've been blocked eight or nine times from different Wikimedia sister projects. They were all 24 hour (or shorter) semi-automatic blocks due to the Wiki software mistaking my dynamic IP address and VPN service for an open proxy – but still: they're all in there, in my records.
  • Secondly, it is important to remember that the act of blocking a user should always be a preventative measure, never a punitive one. This is pointed out in several of Wikimedia's policies, for instance in the English Wikipedia Blocking policy. It would be wrong to "punish" a user by disqualifying him/her from adminship after the block is lifted (i.e. when there is no longer a need to prevent disruptive behaviour).
Regarding point No. 6 I do not feel that bureaucrats should act as gatekeepers. The "gate" to requesting elevated user rights should be constructed from a few simple rules based on facts, not any single users' personal opinion. Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC).
The gatekeeper is needed not to be "on one line with the political system in Iran" as Franz says but to ensure that the basic rules and minimum requirements are being met. Mariusm (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, we may introduce a new rule, that a minimum number of edits is necessary for voting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Whether a user is qualified for requesting adminship should primarily be defined by hard facts, such as X number of edits, proof of cross-wiki experience, not currently banned, and so forth. After all it is only a matter of the right to inquire an admin poll to be started, not the poll itself. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC).
I think that having and generalized minimum number of edits should be a part of the requirements, however I think we can be flexible in this. I do agree that a user page is a must, my reasons are that admins and crats should be visible to all users, contactable and clearly willing to be so. Yes anyone can be contacted by the talk page, whether or not the user page exists, but taking the time to make a user page demonstrates a willingness to communicate. I agree that prior warnings should not be considered as a requirement, I think this one can come up in questions, any proposal for elevated rights can have users pose questions to the applicant to be considered. If there is a dramatic issue in the past it can be brought up and the applicant can explain. Since taxonomy and nomenclature is our specialty I would expect admins to understand the code to a degree. Just an aside I know of at least two commissioners on Wikipedia who edit. I wish they would participate here. I believe anyone can apply, who meets some basic guid3elines, voting and questions can sort out many issues. I think it clearly helps when another admin or crat nominates a person, however, I do not think it should be necessary. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
These are the criteria used by English Wikipedia for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections. An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

  1. has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits
  2. is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans
  3. has disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their election statements

I've removed one out of scope point regarding access to non-public data on Meta and the candidate's willingness to sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC).

Who should be able to vote?[edit]

Another point related to this discussion is who can participate in the vote for admin/crates? I've seen users with barely 5 WS edits vote for an admin. It would be reasonable to allow only admins/crats to vote, or am I wrong? Mariusm (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea, that only admins should have the right to vote on adminship. It's very problematic from a democratic point of view, when a sub-group with elevated right is absolutely self-recruiting. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. It has been said over and and over again that "Wikimedia is not a democracy" – but it certainly isn't a dictatorship ran by admins and bureaucrats either! In my opinion all logged in users should have the right to vote. IP users should not. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC).
But there can be a scenario in which a candidate "recruits" 4 or 5 of his friends and instructs them to register and place a vote in his favor. After all only about 10 persons vote in total at best. Is this the "democracy" we're looking after? Mariusm (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Because of the possibility, that such a scenario might happpen, it should be sufficient to set a minimum requirement of about 50 or 100 edits necessary for voting. Anyway, you never can be sure in advance, that a user promoted to adminship actually will make use of the new buttons in a positive way. However, as an answer to this problem we should not think about restricting access to adminship, but we need better policy and procedures for removal of admin rights after inappropriate use. --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Also, in regards to polls it is important to remember that:
  • Canvassing done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion or poll in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour. Hence, canvassing may get a user blocked, and blocked users don't become admins. The same goes for vote-banking and vote-stacking (i.e. posting messages to select users based on their known opinions), which is also considered inappropriate.
  • Again, Wikimedia is not a democracy. Any poll is only a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it. In the same way that a ruler does not change the length of your finger or make a new finger (it merely measures it), a poll does not change or make consensus. Hence, in a strict meaning it is not mandatory for administrators or bureaucrats to act upon a poll in accordance with its outcome. The result of a poll may (and most often probably should) be a guidance and lay the grounds for administrative decisions, but if it is evident that the outcome of a poll is the result of single candidates "recruiting" hordes of voting minions, then that poll result can be safely ignored.
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC).
I think anyone can vote, with the caveat that they cannot be IP users, and I guess some sort of minimum edit count is reasonable. Just enough to rule out anyone rigging the system. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
These are the criteria used by English Wikipedia for the December 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections. An editor is eligible to vote who:

  1. has registered an account at least a month earlier
  2. has made at least 150 mainspace edits
  3. is not blocked from Wikispecies at the time of their vote.

I've slightly edited points No. 1 and 3, since the original ones are very specific in regards to the enWP December poll. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC).

Users adding valid data without standard taxon formatting[edit]

Fellow admins, how do you think we should deal with users such as User:Roenzer? He has contributed with just over 50 edits, most of them page creations. They all contain verifiable and in most cases relevant data, however they all look pretty much like this. The problem has been pointed out on his talk page by several editors for about one months time, however he has yet failed to respond even once. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC).

Somebody with the expertise will have to check and correct the pages. I think that he will need to be temporarily blocked until this has been completed so that he does not make further edits. He has had enough warnings. However, the edits are in good faith and so treat gently but firmly. Andyboorman (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to communicate with him as well Andyboorman (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about this. Maybe someone should try to contact him on his talk page in some different languages. His name seems to be German with an unusual orthography, but nevertheless his language might be Russian???. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I've checked and patrolled his early and even very first edits and changed their format according to our taxon page standard.diff This I've been doing while trying to communicate with him, in order to give him examples of how the pages could be fixed. Since he has failed to respond I've stopped doing so, prior to bringing up the issue here at the Admins' Noticeboard. (This is also why his latest edits are marked as unpatrolled.)
@Franz Xaver: I've tried to figure out his native tongue but so far without any success. Unfortunately he's got no Wikispecies user page with Babel information, nor has he done any edits on other wikis that might give a hint. We might try a combo of German and Russian anyway – but my Russian is exceptionally limited, at best... –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC).

@Tommy Kronkvist: @Franz Xaver: @BanKris: With regret and subsequent to my warning and continued unformatted edits, I have blocked Roenzer and placed a message on his/her Talk Page. The reason I gave was Vandalism, but may be that is not right. Please feel free to alter my block conditions and so on. Hopefully we get a communication soon. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please also note this page [1] with its attempt to communicate. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Andyboorman: I have altered the reason for the block: "not reacting to warnings". --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
This is very sad (but probably necessary). Please see also Wikispecies:Village Pump#Gyrophaena chees. For the reasons described on en.Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism, please do not describe good-faith contributions, however poorly formatted, as "vandalism". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
My error apologies Andyboorman (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your efforts. Later today and above all tomorrow I'll fix whatever pages Roenzer has created so far. It is not a huge deal, since as I mentioned earlier the factual data seems correct. It is only the formatting that needs fixing, in a total of 56 pages. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

Copying Wikispecies data into other wikis[edit]

At Help talk:Contents#How can I import a Taxonavigation to Wikipedia article? there is a discussion regarding whether it is possible to import taxonavigation data from Wikispecies to Wikipedia, in this particular case the Tamil Wikipedia. Please have a look-see and add your ideas and comments to the talk there. Thank you! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC).

Geographical categories[edit]

I have recently deleted 43 geographical categories like [[Category:"Geographic place" (family)]] since they are unused, discouraged, and there is significant consensus against them. Neferkheperre has deleted even more, just about 500 or so. There are many more and in my opinion they should all be deleted, but please remember to double-check to verify that they're unused prior to deleting them. Some of them contain good references, and any such inline reference should first be made into a standalone reference template before deleting the category. (Please check for duplicates: many of them already exists as reference templates, but not all.) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC).

Thanks. I had better squint harder before deleting. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
At least finding these is easy: just look at Stephen's category contributions. Circeus (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Categories I have an AWB list of about 10,000 to delete if anyone wants it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
As it turns out, almost everything in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded also falls into that category. Circeus (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, take "good reference" with a grain of salt. Something that discuss the invasiveness of a taxon in New Zealand (i.e. most stuff from Surveillance) is a reference that has not bearing or usefulness on Wikispecies IMO. Circeus (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Likewise - see Amorphophallus titanum (New_Zealand). It is present on no pages at the moment. Delete as well? Andyboorman (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The entire hierarchy serves no purpose that we can discern, really. I'm not sure if Stephen ever intended to put actual pages in them at all... Circeus (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Im submitting missing geographical categories in Category:Pages where expansion depth is exceeded to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion in bulk[edit]

There are now almost 5,000 items in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Is there a tool that can be used do this - after manual checking - in batches? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately AWB is only with limited help with this, once you have the list in the left window, you can press the delete button, after checking the file, which is safe, but AWB has no bulk delete function, a program which has is Pywikibot. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It turns out there is a "mass delete" option, Special:Nuke. Admins have access to that, on this project. However I've tried to use its filtering options, and they seem to be ignored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I have some input there; presently we only have category Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. I think we need another category for files we want to suggest to delete, but which are not absolutely Candidates for speedy deletion, and then a category for such files that can freely be deleted, and then with Special:Nuke. In such a case we can go trough Category:Candidates for speedy deletion with AWB, and files which can be deleted, just get transferred to the category where we "mass delete" with Special:Nuke? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Having been through many pages, Dan's suggestion seems to have legs. Can we have the procedure or category? Most of the pages I have looked at and deleted are Nuke candidates, IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I checked out the Special:Nuke, marked it with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, and watch the resulting list. It was totally irrelevant, not at all from the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion but pretty new, good articles. Strange... Dan Koehl (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Right now, Special:Nuke can't filter at all, so it's literally listing the same things as special:newpages... except without the capacity to filter. Completely useless for its purpose. Circeus (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There are now a bit more than 4,000 items in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Already 1 000 files were deleted, only in one week. If Special:Nuke is not useful presently (On the other hand, why isnt it? Can it be configured better?) I guess manual deleting is not as bad, since the user deleting the file really can get a good check-up, before getting deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl, Andyboorman, Pigsonthewing: Special:Nuke is only made for recent edits. It was the first place I went for old edits by Stho002 but it's not an option. As you can see from my log, I have deleted several thousand of these pages and I'm still working on them every now and again. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
↑ What he said. I estimate I've blasted away some 3k of them. Circeus (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


Endangered Species of the Month[edit]

If I may I would like to ask a particular species next time we do endangered species of the month. Elseya albagula is a species I described, but I am not proposing it for that reason. In fact I do not mind if no mention of this point is made in the commentary on it, I am mentioning this in admin first before going elsewhere because of my own lack of NPOV on this taxon. It has been receiving global attention for this:

Scientific American
Time Magazine

Both stories are a couple of years old but this unique species is continuing to decline. The references for the species are on its page here on WS. For those interested. I would be happy to write a piece and can provide photos. I need no credit it is just one I wish to get some attention on. Thanks for considering. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

CheckUser Policy[edit]

One thing we need to discuss is our local CheckUser policy. Since our nominations are drawing to a close. I am putting this here initially for discussion only no voting at this time. We do need to allow the current vote to run its course. Also any voting I would rather do in an RfC rather than here. So the purpose here is to have some ideas of what may be presented in an RfC.

The EN WP policy for CheckUsers is here: Checkuser Grounds for Checking for the most part. A particular point they address and we should think about. WP does not permit users to request a CheckUser of themselves, some people do this as a defense against accusations of sock-puppetry. Do we wish to permit this? Or follow WP viewpoint on this.

We also need to have a clear process, which includes the evidence required to perform a Check. Generally this would be in the forms of diffs. However we are a small Wiki, most of our editors are known to us. A point we can take into account but a clear guideline of when we can take that step of performing the check and the evidence required is important.

Another point is a way for people to open investigations, for example here is Wikipedia Sockpuppet Investigations. Note that the users have options, we should have a means upon which Checkusers can be contacted off-wiki, as they do on Wikipedia. On this point it is probably advisable that the CheckUsers can all contact each other off wiki. These checks are sensitive, potentially with major ramifications and under strict privacy control. Which we must adhere to.

Clearly we do not face some of the issues that the various language Wikipedia's face, sheer numbers of editors means hiding a sockpuppet account is easier. We should of course also look at other sites, the smaller wiki's for their policies.

I ask all admins and crats to post their views here so I can prepare an RfC after the vote on CheckUsers is dealt with. Please no votes here they will be saved for the RfC.

Cheers, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Self-investigation I'm glad that you're taking it seriously and it seems like others are as well--it's a pretty serious responsibility to have access to this information. But I'm confused about the problem of self-investigation... What sensitive info could be "leaked" if I looked into myself...? That was actually the first CheckUser action I did at the first wiki where I had these rights precisely because no one else's sensitive information would be at stake. Besides, if I did check my own username, that would be in the logs for others to see, so it's not like I could somehow use CheckUser to cover up my own sockpuppetry somehow--it would only make it more obvious. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Not you investigate yourself. That I guess is your business. What WP does not grant is requests by other editors to have themselves investigated. From my experience mediating edit wars (which I acknowledge is not that common on Wikispecies) I have seen that if its not going one editors way they sometimes accuse some of the other editors of being sock-puppets, maybe out of frustration, maybe they really suspect it, but there is no evidence. Sometimes the accused says to investigate them as a defense. WP does not grant requests like this. There has to be clear evidence of possibly sock-puppetry for a request to succeed, not just because the accused says to go for it. It is a double edged sword. Yes the user has technically given permission, but CheckUser does not always work either. So I am basically saying should we have a minimum evidence required and stick to it no matter what, or will we accept users requesting that they be investigated. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We need to set up an off wiki global email address that contacts all checkusers and place it here. Users need to be able to contact us offwiki in the event they suspect an admin or crat of sockpuppetry. Hopefully will not happen but the option must be there. We also need a mass message list of the checkusers once we know who they will all be. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Another issue is the building of the case application page. Using the one on Wikipedia is difficult as its highly protected and I cannot access it properly so would have to code it myself. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 05:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Unblock FuzzyBot[edit]

Hello, I would like to know if it is possible to unblock FuzzyBot; I find it rather inconsistent the reason why Pigsonthewing block the bot in June of 2016, this forms part of the Extension:Translate and by default is the extension that controls its operation. Although the bot can still edit in spite of being blocked, its editions are not autopatrolled and when you mark pages for translation, all you do is fill more and more the queue of unreviewed editions. Thanks. 20px Alvaro Molina ( - ) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Since this was the action of one particular admin and your post is saying that you are confused as to why he did something, you may want to ask him first directly. @Pigsonthewing:, do you care to explain your thinking? —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 37#Translation undone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I still do not see sense, it is a bot that is operated by the extension Translate and it is incredible that it has blocked only because it invalidated the translations of that template, which was also the fault of the translation admin of that time and not the bot. But since I do not have time to start a discussion in the Village Pump, I think I will withdraw this request. 20px Alvaro Molina ( - ) 14:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: It seems like this is a good idea, Andy. What do you think? —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
"it [was] blocked only because it invalidated the translations of that template" That's not why it was blocked; as clealry explained in the page section I linked to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It is a no-brainer that does not have a human operator, it is part of an extension. And if we talk about controllers, indirectly are the translation managers and they are responsible in case of an error with the bot when they forget to check the option of no invalidate translations. Also, blocked or unblocked the bot keeps running. 20px Alvaro Molina ( - ) 23:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not having full insight in this, it sounds as if it should be unblocked, especially if there was one error, and it is still running? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The bot works the same or not blocked, as it is an extension software functionality. The underlying problem is that you can not flag as autopatrolled your edits because when you are locked, you do not have access to the autopatrolled right that was granted to you at the time, so it contributes to fill more the list of edits without reviewing. 20px Alvaro Molina ( - ) 00:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Indeed the edit that triggered Andy to block the bot is very disruptive, but it seems more of a temporary oddity in behaviour rather than a true flaw in the code. Any occasional erroneous edits are of course unwelcome, but all in all the bot seems to work as advertised. As Alvaro Molina mentioned the bot is controlled by an extension of the MediaWiki server software, which run the entire site. Hence blocking it locally will have no real effect – it's a bit like trying to block a namespace, or a magic word... I vote for unblocking the bot. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

I have no objection if you want to unblock, but I reiterate I did not block the bot because of the edit you mention, but - as I clearly stated at the time, both her and in the block log - because it did not comply with Wikispecies:Bot#Requirements; indeed it is still deficient in that regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Noted, and understood. I guess that issue should really be brought to Meta-Wiki, rather than (at least for now) being discussed here. Perhaps Meta talk:Babylon is a good starting point, as per the redirect from the Meta-Wiki User:FuzzyBot's talk page? FuzzyBot's user page here at Wikispecies is globally protected, and we can't easily change the data on that page ourselves. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
the bot is absolutely Necessary otherwise a lot of translation work is pointless also believe that the bot is associated with your translated and then run by the WMF employees see no reason to keep him locked not to mention that some of the functions of the translations administrators are undermined by this lack --Samuele2002 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The bot may well be "absolutely Necessary"; it (or rather, its operator) is still required to comply with this project's bot policy (and even if it were not, should do so as a courtesy; the requirements are hardly onerous). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@AlvaroMolina, Pigsonthewing, Tommy Kronkvist, Dan Koehl, Koavf: Look who hold locked FuzzyBot is useless is useless. There is a reason why there is not written anywhere who is the conductor and the discussion pages that link to Babylon as this bot is NOT manipulated by anyone is controlled by the same translate extent and by extension from its developers. Account lockout has the same effect of the m:user: MediaWiki default block that is nothing because these utilities are free from any type of block. Also FuzzyBot bot even if it does not belong to the group Bot is actually has the flag of bots all this because these utilities are written to the MediaWiki code with all its parameters and even system administrators can do much. Look at that FuzzyBot is just currently active you see last contributions dating back to today here --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Samuele2002: I agree that it's not accomplishing anything to keep it blocked. It's not like a user-created bot but like a WMF script essentially. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes In fact, mainly because the block does not produce effects for the bot --Samuele2002 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me this bot for want of a better descriptor has been caught up in bureaucracy. ie red tape. basically rules and policies do need to be administered with some thought. things come along that require a bit of a reassessment. My view is unblock this bot, keep an eye on it, and maybe we need to tweak the policy a little. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin list[edit]

Ok @Dan Koehl, Tommy Kronkvist, OhanaUnited, MPF: and all admins, one of the things I want to do since we have discussed it at least 3 or 4 times is deal with the list of administrators and bureaucrats. But I will do it one at a time starting with Administrators. We have had several conversations about making this list realistic and representative. So first task is to desysop inactive admins. I believe in the past we were talking about 12 months with no activity? Please correct me if wrong. I do not want it seen as some sort of punishment. Its nothing more than they are not able to do the job now for some reason and that is their business. But the list of admins needs to be people who are here often and are contactable. So could we please agree on a list of those that we shall remove the flag from. I ask you all to look through the list of admins, consider what people have done in the last 2 years and decide if they should keep it. Once we have a list we can put it to a vote. Feel free to ping those you list they should have the opportunity to say something.

@Dan Koehl: We do need to make a way to honor these people for their service. As I said I do not want this to look like a punishment. I would suggest a category for former admins, maybe user box that shows they were an admin between two years, and that we shall reinstate them if they wish once they start working here again. Those are my thoughts.

Everyone we have discussed this many times. We need the admin and crat pages to be realistic a list of people users can turn to and get attention when they need it. So I wish to do this quickly. Once done we can look at the crats the same way and then look at filling in the gaps left if it is not enough people. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support . If I remember right though, before we do that, we must establish a local policy, which replaces that stewards take care of this. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support . We really need to rationalise, but the former admin category is also constructive, as long as it does not include desysoped people. Andyboorman (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

yes this category my intention is for people we have removed the higher user level from for inactivity or who have asked for it to be removed. Not for people stripped of the rights for abuse of privileges. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I share Scott's ideas and thoughts in this matter but yes, in order to be able to desysop or "decrat" any user without the use of Wikimedia Stewards (regardless of user activity) we first need a local policy for de-adminship. Since it already is an accepted official global policy I suggest we use Meta-Wiki's Admin activity review as a starting point for that discussion. Side note: For issues like this I think we should start to utilise RFC to a much greater extent than we do today, since imo it would be best if these matters involve the whole community rather than only admins and bureaucrats. I have added an RFC link to the top of the Recent changes page in order accommodate that. At times the Village Pump is already rather swamped with discussions of an at least somewhat lesser degree of importance, and inquiries regarding policy changes and other critical issues might go unnoticed. Hence better to move them to the Requests for Comments page. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC).
Agreed we need to make this an RfC, I started here to get the ball rolling. I will look at Meta pages and work out a policy for here. Can I ask the process for having a policy accepted so that the Stewards are not needed. Not the vote here part. I assume we have to present the policy to the Stewards somehow? do they need to approve it? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Here are the discussions from 2015 and 2016, but there are older discussions than that on this topic; earlier in 2015 and in 2014. Reading that, I now remember only stewards can remove crats user rights, while local crats can remove local admins user rights. So, I guess what we could do, is to have consensus discussions, according to a local policy, and after decisions ask a steward to remove any rights from anyone the community has decided. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah figured only stewards could do the crats, hence I was splitting into two decisions, though they could be done concurrently. I will write up an RfC and post it and begin discussions. I will include a list of which ones I think should be removed, everyone can feel free to disagree or add more. I will do this later tonight. ~I will put the option in for some policy decisions too, get it all done at once. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I'm a local 'crat and it turns out even I can't remove local admin rights. I can only assign admins and bureaucrats, but demote neither. What gives? Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
@Dan Koehl, Tommy Kronkvist: I am in the same situation. I know I asked to confirm this last night. But I just looked I can remove rights for bots and translation admins, but not for admins. If this is correct I will have to change the RfC to be more like Commons in this area. Unless I am seeing something wrong. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
True, I didn't notice this before. My guess is that this is deliberately configured by someone, guess we must apply to get this corrected. Strange. Im curious as to exactly when this was changed, and by whom. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tommy Kronkvist, Dan Koehl: This is consistent with m:Bureaucrat. Only a handful of wikis give bureaucrats the ability to revoke--usually it is only stewards. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok makes sense, I will alter the RfC, make that part the same as Commons. Give me 10 mins. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 09:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks Justin (and Scott). I only checked enWP:bureaucrats and thought that was the norm, but it turns out they're one of the exceptions where bureaucrats have that ability. IMO we need a local policy for admin and crat (in)activity regardless of that. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

@Faendalimas: If you change or add paragraph headings to the RfC page, please also alter the RfC links in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext to reflect those changes. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist: I did not change any headings, just struckout the incorrect text and brought it into line. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Good work, but I also meant to give a heads-up for future RfC's. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC).

[edit]

Please would an uninvolved admin close the RfC at Wikispecies:Village Pump#Paid editing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Dan Koehl (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: I can see you've templated it, but where is the summary of what was agreed? And as the first supporter, surely you're involved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right, I removed the div. Now its open again. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I did not participate in this discussion. What ritual must be performed? Neferkheperre (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. A short summary of the consensus reached, like that at the head of this Wikipedia RfC should suffice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for delete[edit]

After a change in Wikispecies:Localization page, 2 translations are not need anymore and the translation pages need to be deleted. The pages are the sub pages of Special:PrefixIndex/Translations:Wikispecies:Localization/7 and Special:PrefixIndex/Translations:Wikispecies:Localization/8 (23 each, i think the english page need to be delete too, but i am not sure). - yona b (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Tommy Kronkvist: - yona b (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@יונה בנדלאק: You're welcome. To other users and for the sake of reference, the corresponding deletion logs can be found here.Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

MediaWiki Code of Conduct Draft[edit]

Fellow admins and 'crats, please take a look at this talk+poll at MediaWiki regarding whether the drafted Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces should become an official policy for Wikimedia technical spaces: MediaWiki: Finalize "Amendments" section?

If the amendment is approved it will apply both within physical spaces (such as Wikimedia technical events and Wikimedia technical presentations in other events) and within virtual spaces (Phabricator, MediaWiki IRC channels, etc). Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

Template:AEMNP[edit]

There's a glitch in Template:AEMNP, it produces an empty line, e.g. here: Template:Černý,_2011. IMO the problem is caused by a line feed between Full article (PDF)]}} and <noinclude>[[Category:External link templates]]. Please check. --Murma174 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC).
That was fast :-) Thank you. --Murma174 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Odd behaviour for "Spanish" main page[edit]

Please see the thread "Main page in Portuguese for Spanish users with Spanish set in their preferences" at the Village Pump. Any help is most welcome! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC).

Yes check.svg Resolved. Thanks Koavf. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

Maxim request for removal of advanced rights[edit]

A request for the removal of advanced rights has been made to the Stewards here at the request of Maxim. Maxim sent me a message on my talk page here which I have followed up on. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Stewards have marked the request as done. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC).


Please move[edit]

[[Traundl Krapp-Schickel]] to Traudl Krapp-Schickel --92.211.169.138 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Maik Bippus[edit]

Maik Bippus

This person contacted wikipedia twice by email asking to withdraw that page. Is there no respect of personal data at wikipedia for living persons? Kindly somebody takes it out and blocks it. 109.122.137.125 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion there is no need to publish the address, as it is a private address obviously. --Murma174 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@109.122.137.125: This is not Wikipedia, so I can't speak to what happened there. The info has been deleted and the history suppressed. If I had the Oversight, I would remove it entirely but I can't. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The edits revealing personal information should be oversighted. I've made a request, in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
This has now been enacted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

BLP policy[edit]

I have drafted Wikispecies:Biographies of living people. We should probably consider developing it further, I have been concerned for a while that we publish email addresses, without verification or checking for currency. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I see this as a bit of an overreaction. Granted a private address or contact details should not be provided and should have been removed. However, we are not writing biographies per se, what we are putting together is the basic taxonomic authority information of these authors. It should only contain the name, institution, authored taxa and relevant references. It is not a full biography. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The WMF Board resolution, passed in 2009, calls on us to: "[Ensure] that projects... that describe living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles". They do not distinguish between "describe living people" and "full biography". It also imposes a duty of "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest". The case above clearly failed the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that we should have extreme caution about providing contact information outside of something that is forward-facing like a university homepage. Those are by definition intended to broadcast information for communicating between scholars and having them here is actually extremely valuable. As Andy has pointed out, it's incumbent upon us to come up with a policy either way and I think we can all agree that erring on the side of caution is better. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The standard policy is fine. The information we provide should be public domain anyway. If you publish, which you have to have for us to do a page on you, then the information in those papers is public domain. However, we should refrain from private addresses and email contacts. Apart from that its all public information and without opinion. I do not see the need for us to do anything complicated in this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 20:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: Even if our policy is just "please see the WMF's policy", we should still have something. I don't think we need much more than that but we should have that documented. There are definitely contributors here who aren't familiar with cross-wiki policies, etc. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Which "standard policy" would that be? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of local policies we are required by default to follow that's of WMF thats what I mean by standard, I was generalising to be fair. The reality is that on this wiki to have a page you have described a taxon, which means you published that and hence verification is kind of a moot point. You would not have the page if the paper verifying the taxon did not exist. All information in those papers is public domain. Can be used under fair use. We are not really writing anything about the author, just a list of their taxa and the relevant references. I agree we should not list private addresses and emails for these authors, its in the paper anyway people can get the paper and read it in the public document the author agreed to publish thus making their right to such privacy irrelevant. However, we should not repeat this it is unnecessary information on our pages. Hence the basic principals already set out by WMF more than cover what we do. So as you say we have to say something, fine make a policy page with a link to the WMF policies and guidelines on this. Issue covered. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
To make the point that I really do not agree with private addresses being on there, check my taxon authority page, I obviously have given permission for all the content there. But nowhere on that page or anywhere else on WMF pages is my private address. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 10:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)