I've raised the priority of this task from Low to Normal - clearly fixing an issue which is preventing users with sight issues from registering and thereby participating in our projects is not a 'low' priority task in any conceivable situation.

Why is the tool breaking one of our most important, long standing and cherished policies, namely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content, and allowing the first mover to take over some level of ownership and control of an article in translation.

I think the issue of category blocking allowing non-admins to perform admin level actions has been highlighted sufficiently often now that it'll have killed category blocking for the foreseeable future, so I'll only mention it briefly, and only to say it's going to allow people involved in content disputes to try and game category blocks by moving pages in and out of categories as necessary. It'll clearly encourage socking and block evasion which isn't good for our already overworked checkusers.

In T201696#4495322, @Timeshifter wrote:

I asked her why she didn't leave an edit summary, and she beat around the bush about not needing one at all. In the 2nd thread I suggested changing its title to "Rollback is currently inherently abusive". I think Rollback editors should apologize for the times its use causes all these problems. Problem is solved by using undo instead in those situations where a lot of material is being removed from different sections of a talk page.

In T201696#4495130, @Timeshifter wrote:

The whole point of creating some options for meaningful edit summaries for Rollback is to generate a more positive atmosphere on Wikimedia Projects. To avoid rude blanking of parts of pages without explanation. To lower the number of active editors who leave. To encourage those that stay by feeling the need to explain things to them. Wikimedia has become so rude at times that some longterm rollback users do not even see the problem.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_active_editor_statistics

I am not seeking to make mandatory the use of edit summaries in rollback because that would be a non-starter with many editors. And I fully acknowledge the difficulty of making a list of edit summaries that would cover everything rollback is used for.

In T201696#4494900, @Timeshifter wrote:

"Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2" says nothing about why the reversion was made.

Providing a list of editable edit summaries could be implemented in such a way that you wouldn't have to use it. The default setting would just be the near-useless "Reverted edits by User1 (talk) to last version by User2".

In T201696#4494864, @Timeshifter wrote:

In T201696#4494851, @Nick wrote:

Rollback has always been (and has always intended to be) a 'quick and dirty' way of very rapidly reverting content that should not be in the most recent revision of a page. Its use is subject to local and global policies, it has been accepted by the community on a local and global basis that when rollback is used, a default edit summary rather than a custom/tailored/hand-written edit summary will be left.

Where is this "default edit summary". I have rollback right on English Wikipedia and all I see when I rollback one of my user pages or subpages is "Reverted edits by Timeshifter (talk) to last version by ..."

In T201696#4494842, @Timeshifter wrote:

Addressing Chrissymad's concerns. One of the options in the edit summary list could be to leave no edit summary. Or Chrissymad could choose Long Term Abuse, etc, etc. from the list as an option. From then on all her rollbacks would show that as the edit summary. At least until she chose another option from the list.

I suggest that the developers show the last selected option somewhere openly on the diff page and revision history page. Etc. So one knows before clicking the rollback button.

Since I'm lurking on Phabricator - any idea how many usernames have this incorrect attribution issue that will need fixed ?

In T192455#4157079, @TheDJ wrote:

And since all these kinds of requests are basically very much dependent on the energy of WMF employees outside of their scheduled activities, they are therefore not helping you to achieve your goals.

What's the criteria for choosing which 10 (talk) pages will receive a notification ?

And File Upload Wizard works using Microsoft Edge on Windows 10 v 1079, using Timeless.

Thanks appears to be working correctly on Commons, following a quick test with an edit and an upload.

File Upload Wizard confirmed to be working with FF 58.0.2 on MacOS.

In T179246#3718229, @Aklapper wrote:

Hmm, how does this request differ from what's usually handled on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes#Requests_involving_merges.2C_usurps_or_other_complications ?

In T173374#3599866, @fgiunchedi wrote:

I've downloaded the file Literature_II,_Harutyun_Surkhatian.djvu to check for corruption just in case @Nick though it might be valid and just pathological per-page dimensions.

https://people.wikimedia.org/~filippo/Literature_II_tom%252C_Harutyun_Surkhatian.djvu

Also needs https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Literature_II_tom,_Harutyun_Surkhatian.djvu deleted, created by same user with same deletion issue.

In T173374#3527640, @fgiunchedi wrote:

Is there an exception id or anything like that attached to the error? I can't find anything related to that in logstash ATM

The biggest issue is surely going to be people trying to upload their own images from Flickr without changing the licence to something Commons compatible ?

I've not been able to speak to the user who was encountering issues, I would treat their assertion that they disabled VisualEditor fully with a pinch of salt. I did have a report this morning of the same issue (so can confirm it's still occurring, as I write this).

I'm having the same problem with a user in -help today.

I've no issue in Commons supporting MP3 files, but if Legal is happy with the situation and support is to be turned on, could it be done with a suitable degree of planning, to allow the Commons community time to set up appropriate systems to identify and handle copyright violations.

Thanks for doing this so quickly. I'd have no complaints if it's redeployed with a way to switch this feature off and on.

Please revert this - we already have a perfectly good drop down list of 'canned' block (and deletion) log entries. The un-necessary duplication, particularly when deployed in this manner, has meant I no longer have the 'custom' log entries saved in my browser history which I can use to provide supplementary detail in addition to the drop down log entries.

In T150605#2798239, @Paladox wrote:

Oh so it seems that we now have to presume every one is compromised?

The tool also needs to ensure the original uploader and not the transwiki-ing administrator receives notifications should the fair use rationale be incorrect, the file become unused or other issues with the file occur.

I can no longer replicate the issues I encountered earlier either.

@Stemoc reported an issue with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9.13.11CommonByLuigiNovi2.jpg (though I can't replicate the issue).

Type is 'html' with the full output below.

I can replicate the issue using FF 49.0.1 on Mac OS X 10.11.5 with the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ApisDorsataHive.jpg

Did a bit more work using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife and from what little I can gather, it's possibly some sort of layout issue. Splitting the page up into sections, the following images prevent rendering and return the error code.

[[File:Auditorio de Tenerife 013.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Auditorio de Tenerife]], icon of architecture in Canary Islands<ref>[http://www.treklens.com/gallery/Europe/Spain/Madrid/Madrid/Mostoles/photo370327.htm Auditorio Tenerife, information (in Spanish)]</ref>]]

[[File:Hospital Universitario de Canarias.png|thumb|right|300px|[[Hospital Universitario de Canarias]]]]

but taking what are Sections 12 to 18 (containing those two images) and creating a separate page composed just of those sections, rendering completes correctly and a correctly formatted PDF file can be downloaded. The only thing in common all of the causes I've found today have would be they determine the position and style of the text and images within the completed PDF file.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Plantagenet is breaking as a result of nested lists, and looks to be a LaTeX related error.

[[File:Ueber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grösse.pdf|thumb|Bernhard Riemann's article on the number of primes below a given magnitude.]]

is confirmed as the cause of the failure on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_zeta_function - as above, rendering fails when that line of markup is present and rendering finishes correctly with the line of markup removed. The error can be replicated regardless of the PDF file used or the way it's framed within the page (thumb etc).

The article [[JavaScript]] was reported to be suffering from this behaviour. The error can be reproduced when the following snippet of code is present

<small>{{Version |l | show=110100}}</small>

and eliminated by removing the <small></small> tags, i.e rendering finishes correctly with the following snippet of code.

{{Version |l | show=110100}}

This isn't the cause of issues on other pages.

The OAuth problem T78223 has been fixed, but CommonsHelper is still giving an error (different to the above).

It's now returning 8,710,000 results for the "DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS: You're probably busy, so we'll get right to it. This week we ask our readers to help us. This week we ask our readers to protect our site:en.wikipedia.org" search.