Shortcut: WS:AN

Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There are archives of this Noticeboard:
2015201620172018
The archives are searchable:

Welcome to the Administrators' Noticeboard.

This space is for anyone who needs to contact an administrator ("sysop") for actions such as protecting a page, deleting spam, or blocking vandals.
If you rather need to reach a Translation administrator, please use the Translation Administrators' Noticeboard instead. For general conversation, see Wikispecies:Village Pump.

Start a new conversation.



Religion and Wikispecies[edit]

As far as I can tell the newly created وݙا ورقہ page is an attempt to create a Saraiki (or perhaps Urdu) language version of the Wikispecies Main Page. I do however see some issues with it. After the standard page header the first three words on the page are ست بسم اللہ i.e. Bismillah Allah or in English "In the name of God, Allah". I don't know much about the culture in and around Punjab (whether Indian or Pakistani parts), and as for this particular page I'm not absolutely sure it's meant to be a religious statement at all. Yes the phrase itself consists of the very first words in the Quran, but from a cultural aspect perhaps it's also a mere phrase of civility and courtesy? Analogous with "Bless you, visitor", if you like? After all the equivalent phrase on the English main page is "Welcome to Wikispecies". Personally I'm not a religious guy and have no problems whatsoever with these matters (I'm more of an agnostic atheist, if anything), but my question to you fellow admins is whether there is an overall or general Wikimedia policy governing cases like this? If there is I say we act accordingly.

Secondly the page goes on talking about "Wikiquote varieties" (وکی انواع) and "Wikinews is free" (وکی انواع مفت ہے) rather than the Wikispecies' ditto phrases. Unfortunately I have no clue what the Saraiki name for "Wikispecies" is, so I can't really change that... How should we go about dealing with this page, and future pages like it? Your thoughts, please! Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 00:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC).

Punjab in India can be Hindu or Muslim. Louisiana's former governor Jindal was Hindu from India's Punjab, converted to Catholic. Even Soviets had cultural statements that mentioned God, and Stalin composed love poetry mentioning God. Thus, we do need to be careful. I like to keep religion away from public affairs, and I agree with Aristotle that monotheists have screws loose. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Being written in Arabic script, it is quite obvious, that Saraiki is the Muslim version of Punjabi, as Urdu is the Muslim version of Hindi. This doesn't mean, that these languages would be restricted to Pakistan, as there still exists a considerable number of Muslims in India. I suppose, the name of the language is derived from "Saray", which seems to imply, it would have originated from the dialect of Punjabi spoken at the palace or court of the Muslim rulers of the country. Anyway, if such a phrase is meant as a welcome message only, I would not see any problem. I suppose, that the content of Wikispecies could not be used to convert anybody to any kind of religion. However, beware of any attempts which might give the message, that WS seemingly would support creationism. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
For the page at hand it's pretty obvious that it is written in Saraiki. The user name of the editor is "Sraiki" [sic] and all of the users' other edits are translations using the .skr language code, i.e. Saraiki. So yes we're dealing with the main page for the Saraiki language version of Wikispecies. In essence I agree with Franz Xaver but I want to stress that I'm not at all certain that the phrase is meant as a mere welcome message and nothing else. It may be, or not – I don't know. It would really help if there is a global Wikimedia policy to guide us in situations like these. Does any of you admin's know of such a policy? If there is one we might as well adopt it as a local policy, perhaps together with an NPOV policy adapted for the special type of information we manage at Wikispecies. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC).

Symbol support vote.svg Support I think its a good idea. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support But ! do not know of a global WM policy. However, taxonomy is independent of religion, or at least should be. Andyboorman (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Wikispecies and Religion can't live together. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 22:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support We do need global policy, which can be adapted for Wikispecies in particular. Wikispecies, like science, must be independant of all religion and politics. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support same as above we must be independent of religion and politics, this is science. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Translators and Unpatrolled Pages[edit]

Just wondering, should we have a policy to look at those doing translations fairly quickly and give them patrol rights if warranted. Since our unpatrolled edits went from 60 odd to 800 odd in a day or so which is largely a combination of one translator and one ip, whom I suspect may be the same translator. Thoughts on this? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I guess @Faendalimas: you mean autopatrolled, and not patrolled rights? In that case, I agree with you, that it would be good to somehow bring down the list of unpatrolled edits, which just includes translations. I guess in many cases, it should be enough to checkup some 10-20 edits of a contributor, and if they look OK; then use RTRC and masspatrol the rest of the dits and give the translator autopatrolled rights. The problem is of course, that unless theres several or many users who understand the particulair language, how can hundreds of edits be controlled, when written in a language that I dont understand? Somehow I feel that all those translations should be administrated somewhere else, like translationwiki, where more users speak the particulair language, rather than here on WS? In any case, 800 edits to patrol, in a language one doesnt understand, is a major challenge.
What does WS translator admins think about this? Dan Koehl (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
(Just a short note about RTRC. I frequently use it, but for me the tool always ignore any edits that are translations, regardless whether I chose "All" or "Translations" in the Namespace drop-down menu.) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC).
yes I am meaning looking at a way to fast-track them to autopatrol rights. I am thinking of this with users who have possibly a clear history of translating on other wikis etc. I agree the cqpacity of us to actually manually patrol their edits, considering they may be in languages I do not understand, can be limited in any case. I also am interested in what our translation admins have to say on this. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, most of the unpatrolled editions correspond to translations, in addition, later verifying those translations for those who don't master the language is challenging, and Wikispecies does not have a large multilingual community as one would wish. Regards. —AlvaroMolina ( - ) 22:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this could be raised as a question on Phabricator, if it would be possible to "outsource" the translation edits to translatorwiki? I have noticed that this seems to have been the case with some pages I have translated on meta. At Meta, after clicing on "translate", obviously the translation process where located on translatorwiki... Dan Koehl (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I am don't have patrol rights and therefore i don't see what you see in the "recent changes" (but I understand what you mean ;). I called User:Amire80 here to get a wise decision from him.
In my opinion, translations should not be excluded from patrol. And also "autopatrol" right should not be granted automatically. If "Patrol" mechanism allows grant the patrol flag only to certain namespaces, it would be possible to assign this flag to trusted users from other projects, who will occasionally check the translations in their languages.
About current workflow. Current filter "Not translations" in he Recent Changes may be useful for hide changes in the translation namespace. Similar filter for RTRC tool (like "Hide translations") currently requested.--Kaganer (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand and agree, it should not be automatic. More I was meaning that we may wish to look at translators work on other wikis, when available, and use that to make a decision. At least this way reduce the number of unpatrolled edits from translators. Your filtering ideas are also of course useful. Thanks Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Many good unpatrolled edits are just translations that don't need to be in that queue. Since very few users are native Wikispecians, we can easily click on their home wikis and see if it looks like they are doing good work there (no blocks, lots of edits, many edits which are current versions) and make a snap judgement that will be correct 90% of the time. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I get a little confused here, what benefit does it make if I can filter out 800 translations with "Hide translations" on Recent Changes aside from that I dont see them anymore, but they are still there and will for sure give someone else headache? Secondly, I find it implementing a very weak way of "patrolling", checking what a user has done on another wiki and taking for granted, or guessing, that this is such a good person, so the edits must be ok. I would stress the fact, that an edit written in a language that I dont understand, and cant read, is out of my capacity to patrol? Using google translate can serve a cause in some cases, but not for 800 edits?
So, as I see it patrolling on Wikispecies should be in regard to that a new editor follows standard of syntax, supply valid sources etc, but Im afraid that we cant really seriously handle the almost 300 languages listed as different language editions of Wikipedia without starting guessing that they are good edits, and what purpose does the patrolling then really provide? Wouldnt it really make sese that translating and patrolling in 300 different language translations of the WS pages should be performed outside WS, by people who know the different languages?
Somehow I see Wikispecies syntaxt edits as responsibility for the WS community, and should be our patrolling focus.
  1. Filter out operations doesnt solve the problem, just makes me not see it anymore?
  2. Guessing edits are OK by judging the users edits on other projects, is not really a serious way of patrolling?
  3. If people want to translate Wikispecies into 400 different languages, I believe it should be up to THEM, who understands that patriculair language, to patrol those translations.
Dan Koehl (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've just given User:Omotecho the 'autopatrolled' flag. unfortunately this does not mark their earlier edits (of which there are many; and for which we shoudld be very grateful) patrolled. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Koavf. translation changes cannot be mark automatically because it have some vandalisme. but after enough translation(20?50?100?) made by a user, in all wikimedia project, The sysop can consider to give autopatrolled rights. - yona b (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: yes it is beyond our capacity in general to patrol 100's of edits in a language we do not understand. So My question/ suggestion was to utilise their history on other wikis. I think if someone has made several hundred edits on a wiki with zero complaints, no admin intervention, and possibly received autopatrol rights on that wiki, then in good faith we can assume they are doing the same here. This is about translators only of course. I would suspect that with some of these translators it would be several wikis behind them. This should not be automatic, if their is no background then there is nothing we can do I suspect. We would have to use our own judgement as to when to give autopatrol rights. As to the numbers as per @יונה בנדלאק: point, I think in this case a higher number and maybe multiple wikis, so at least 100, however, I think a good translator is not going to have difficulty having that edit count. Thanks @Pigsonthewing: for giving Omotecho autopatrol, clearly yes this is who I have been talking about right now, but this was just the current example, its not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. I do think from what I can tell that his edits are all in good faith and very useful to us, for which I am grateful. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with yona b. CreativeC (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Same as Koavf. Sorry for my limited time but I recently read this. --Stïnger (会話) 23:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
One problem with using other-wiki edits as a reference for (auto)patrolling is that historically we've seen cases where the actual translations have been good, but the quality of the translations haven't been matched by the editor' understanding of Wikispecies' rather special syntax and layout preferences. This is of course not a question of vandalism or any other sort of malicious motive: most often it's simply a matter of not knowing how our author- and reference templates etc. should be formatted. For example many Wikipedia-savvy users have added {{Cite journal}} and {{Cite web}} templates over the years, not knowing that they are unrecommended for use on Wikispecies. It's all done in good faith of course, but still takes quite a bit of time to fix afterwards. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC).

"Autopatrolled" entries to be removed from the logging table[edit]

The following information was copied from the latest Wikitech ambassador's newsletter:

Hello all,

This change might impact people who run tools based on the patrolling status of edits. This could also be relevant for admins. Feel free to share with your local communities.

Currently, MediaWiki is storing the information about if an edit has been patrolled or autopatrolled in the logging table. This table is getting very very big, causing significant infrastructure issues.

Therefore, we plan to make the following changes:

  • Stop adding new entries for autopatrolling to the logging table
  • Remove the old entries for autopatrolling from this table
  • Since the distinction between autopatrol and manual patrol was introduced in April of 2016, We need to remove every patrol action (manual or not) before that date.
  • Include information about autopatrolled in the recentchanges table. The fields rc_patrolled is current 0 for unpatrolled edits, and 1 for patrolled edits. In the future, it will be 0 for unpatrolled, 1 for manually patrolled, and 2 for autopatrolled edits.

This means that the information about if an edit is autopatrolled, will be accessible only in the Recent Changes table, for 30 days. For now, manual patrolling actions will continue to be recorded in the logging table as before, and will remain visible on Special:Log. More details can be found in the technical RFC document, see phab:T184485.

We plan to deploy these changes on April 4th. The script removing patrol actions in the database may take several weeks to run.

If you’re maintaining a tool using logging.log_action = "autopatrolled", please consider changing your code to use recentchanges.rc_patrolled = 2. If this is going to cause large issues for an important tool, please let us know.

If you have any technical question, feel free to write to user:Ladsgroup.

Léa Lacroix (WMDE)
Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata

Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC).

Block request[edit]

Please block for Special:Contribs/188.119.6.221 . vandamism --Rxy (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I blocked this IP address due to seems no available local sysops for this time. Please delete pages created by this IP address. Thanks. --Rxy (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Im looking into this, trying to mass revert, thank you, @Rxy:. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I can see now that all edited pages hes been reverted, and there is no created pager, once again, thanks Rxy! Dan Koehl (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate: Harutaka Hatanaka and Harutaka Hata[edit]

@Pigsonthewing:, hi, I am working on Wikidata d:Q21392731 and figured out it is the same person as d:Q21389345 畑 晴陵 (Harutaka Hata). The author's family name per the cited doi is Hata, not Hatanaka. How do you solve that case first in Wikispecies? Hatanaka needs to be corrected as Hata, but since it is the first case for me, and please point me to which page I will learn the details of procedure. Thanks, ----Omotecho (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

@Omotecho: There are several stages, best performed in this sequence:

  1. move Template:Hatanaka & Motomura, 2015 to Template:Hata & Motomura, 2015
  2. update any pages that were using Template:Hatanaka & Motomura, 2015
  3. update every Wikispecies page that currently links to Harutaka Hatanaka, so that they instead link to Harutaka Hata
  4. redirect Harutaka Hatanaka to Harutaka Hata
  5. if true, add a note to Harutaka Hata, to say that the name "Harutaka Hatanaka" is used in some places
  6. on Wikidata, remove the link to Harutaka Hatanaka from d:Q21392731
  7. on Wikidata, merge d:Q21392731 into d:Q21389345
  8. on Wikidata, clean up d:Q21389345 if required

I don't think any of this is documented, other than the Wikidata merge process, at d:Help:Merge. Please let me know if any of this is not clear, or you need help. And thank you for your continuing good work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, your instrcution is very clear, and I will follow the steps, which I feel comfortable to the third dagger at the moment. I will try and provide reason why those two templates needs to be merged, not only the above point but add perhaps cinii record statistics. Maybe ask you a question on the way. Best, ----Omotecho (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Merge done as above instruction, and Wikidata cleaned up for d:Q21389345, but not noted that the only page linked to Harutaka Hatanaka (erroneous name merged into d:Q21389345) is this page. If there be any error, please kindly ping me. ----Omotecho (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Please block
https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/168.8.125.3
for repeated vandalism. Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I need help reviewing a Global RFC[edit]

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we also block[edit]

@Dan Koehl, Koavf: and anyone else with a view, I noticed a recent sock account issue on EN:WP may have ramifications for us. here. I am wondering if we should preemptively block these accounts too since they do not seem to be global blocks. I ask because in this case the user is a known creator and vandaliser of pages on Lepidopterans, Birds, Fish and Plants. Both accounts blocked there have been created here. ie User:Caftaric and User:Nono64. However at this point no edits have been done here by this user. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't allow sockpuppets on this project either, so it's not a problem to preemptively block from my perspective. I would not block the main account, tho--everyone deserves a second chance and he could be a productive editor here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Justin, the main account should only be blocked IF the user vandalize. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
ok cool, I have blocked User:NotWith as a known sock of the original account User:Nono64 other known socks User:Caftaric, User:R567, User:Wwikix, User:Couiros22 are not present on Wikispecies at present but I note them here. The original account has not been blocked. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Earlier today I deleted the page "The DisuseKid Bible" and blocked User:Koda Knows(Global account information) who created the page. The account is a confirmed sockpuppet of the cross-wiki vandalism-only account User:DisuseKid(Global account info) and a suspected sockpuppet of User:DisuseKid's Disciple.(Global account info) Furthermore, all three of those accounts are also globally locked. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC).