Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

← Community page

Community pages

Archives (current) →

This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help. Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page. Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 1,159,133 No. of articles = 284,224 No. of files = 1,848 No. of edits = 3,617,694 No. of pages in Main = 250,925 No. of pages in Page: = 667,929 No. proofread in Page: = 23,508 No. validated in Page: = 23,508 No. of pages in Main  with transclusions = 48,592 % transcluded pages in Main = 19.37 Σ pages in Main  No. of users = 389,484 No. of active users = 368 No. of group:autopatrolled = 267 No. in group:sysop = 39 No. in group:bureaucrat = 3 No. in group:bot = 28 Statistics

Checkuser notification

Log

Users	Results
Vipeak01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL)	website promotional spam, main ns, blocked by BWC; identified source (.cn), and did xwiki cleanup, reported to CUs, blocked IP for extended period
Mariapbonner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log - SUL) and Entouragepoint	user page commercial spam; blocked by BWC; identified source (.ph), and had universally blocked, blocked small IP range for mid term period
Katarighe (talk • contribs)	Concerns at another site about the validity of actions and identity. As had voted at our elections without much previous edit history, I felt it necessary to check. Nothing substantive to report. Letting it drop. I can try and answer questions, if possible. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Other

Editnotice capability

As per a discussion at WS:S, I have been looking at Commons:Commons:Editnotice and think that the capability offered there would be beneficial on-site. I am still working through the information, but I think that overall there will be benefits. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Spurious account creations x-wiki

A note to say that the checkusers across the WMF platform are seeing account creations for slavic sounding names, or parts of names, with an XXXX numerical ending. Some are being used for spam, others have been left, as sleepers? While it is hard to know, if you are seeing something that may be suspicious please bring it to the attention of one of the CUs. We have also seen an unusual sock farm set up from a Chinese IP range, though the purpose is hard to determine. As they are being unearthed, I will be doing further blocking. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gadget ShowMessage

I have added a gadget (generally more useful for admins) that allows the showing the page components of pages. This is useful when we want to see where the text for the page design is located. The script is located at enWP, and is inhaled by ResourceLoader for those who wish to use it. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account

How would I go about receiving another account to be used exclusively on public, or any other computer which is not my personal computer? — Ineuw talk 05:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a login (via special pages on left sidebar), and there is a create account link on the same page, so use that. There is info around about the recommended means to link the two accounts. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

See Wikisource:Alternate accounts, the appropriate templates for linking the accounts are listed there. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI MediaWiki:Powersearch-ns

I amended this page from its default format to have a link. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Block request

Hi. Please block Maxeyre (talk • contribs). This is a crosswiki spammer; I already globally locked all accounts, but this is a nonsul one. Thanks. Trijnstel (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Advice of spamming moved from WS:S

User:Vipeak01 is spamming Wikisource with advertisements of Chinese made stone crushers. Vertical shaft impact crusher Anyone interested?— Ineuw talk 07:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Blocked user and deleted pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I really didn't know where to post it. — Ineuw talk 07:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dug further through and found a bit of a fetid issue xwiki, so have relayed details. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

Would anyone mind fulfilling my edit request here? Thanks in advance Americophile (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Wikisource protected edit requests

We haven't had a reasonable means to monitor Category:Wikisource protected edit requests where the output of {{editprotected}} is listed. To assist us to have a means, I have added a part into MediaWiki:Recentchangestext that not only turns the link on and off, but also does a count on the number of pages in the category and projects that int Special:RecentChanges — billinghurst sDrewth

User name weirdness

Please see multiple new alpha-numeric account contributions. Content "seems" like spam regardless but does not contain any external links as far as I can tell. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that User:Asdofindia is unrelated to others, given the span between active dates. The others seem to meet WS:CSD G1. JeepdaySock (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the way I see it - just wanted to make sure a checkuser followed up in case this was abuse of multiple-accounts/cross-wiki. etc., before the contribution(s) get deleted. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a crosswiki issue. Blocked, and replaced the pages with {{blocked user}}; reported to CUs across WMF. Underlying IP addresses (2x) have been managed globally. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New manifestation: double random six-letter names sleeper cells have erupted in a flood of spam. I am compiling a list of these cells in order of spamming so Billinghurst can investigate the underlying IP addresses and report them if necessary:

User:YifekaFesike
User:DobotoBucuce
User:JamazoSabige
User:GavizaQoboco
User:LajiziJecake
User:FoqaziRilohi
User:JusikuQowayi
User:WilihoSeyogo

I have not blocked them yet, I am not sure what the right combination of options should be. ResScholar (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Done My guess would be bot accounts, though a different bot. They are all emanating from a Bulgarian IP range, too big to block or easily heck. There was a concentration from 95.45.0.0/16 so I have blocked that for a week to new account creation, and killed the accounts that look problematic. Watch and see is probably the only answer. To note that I did a quick check of Special:Log but it is pretty noisy checking just for "new user account" and I found nothing new. To note to the community that I did check some other IP ranges within 95.0.0.0/8 and it just confirmed what we already new. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Fwiw... I've since tweaked abuse filter 15 in the interim and it seems to be detecting this type of spam creation just fine now. Please follow up on them - I left the latest ones alone for your review this round. Not sure what else could improve the filter - still learning the ins and outs here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: Filters 15 & 16 were overlapping each other a bit in regards to isolating specific namespaces/user rights - further tweaks should have both working fine as of this post. The 3 bot-like spam accounts under Filter 15 still need a review and action per checkuser I'm guessing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is an API filter that just shows sparse details of new users at our wiki (none of the automatically created)

• enWS new users

GOIII if you add a tag to the filter, then we can add the tag specifically with the letag=.... Probably can write a regex to grab XxxxxxXxxxxx [A-Z][a-z]{5}[A-Z][a-z]{5}. Once I have finished the analysis of remaining I may have a look. Found addresses outside that IP range too. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I followed your lede on Filter 15 strictly identifying new external links (most likely spam given the low edit count/not-autoconfirmed-yet status) in User: & User talk: namespaces so I guess a tag simply reading "spam" should do fine there. Not sure what it is/was you were trying to isolate with Filter 16 so I'm not going to touch that for now.

Also, I can't figure out how to stop it from detecting the previously added external links as "new" on subsequent edits executed afterwards. I'll keep tinkering I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

proposals, policy, guidelines, rules

Regarding any statements about rules for alternate accounts I would like to point to something I only recently read. The text is shown below but the page has a large blue question mark.

---

[This page is a proposed Wikisource policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as a "policy" or "guideline" ]

---

A proposal is not a rule. It remains a proposal until it is adopted as a rule. This can be very confusing even now because it is still a "proposal" I think that "gathering of consensus for adoption" has likely had plenty of time to be decided upon as to whether the proposal remains a proposal or is adopted as a rule. I mention this for new people more than anyone here and I believe this is important. I ask that the proposal be adopted as a rule asap. How long does that take? What about people who have two accounts and that proposal, or even as a rule, takes place after they arrive? How many rules are there on wikisource (WS) and where are all of them? Does one have to hunt for them all and learn them all before trying to edit and perhaps adding a 2nd account? People do not come to wikisource to read and remember all of the rules and the rules and others such as proposals seem to be scattered as it is. How does one know when a rule has changed i.e. sock puppets? Is there a remedy for any or all of this? The "blue question mark" of it all should be removed from all of these situations should it not? —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 23:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Everything operates by community consensus, the majority of vocal members of the community have come here from other wiki's where the expectations we are discussing are "policy" and they have found having them as policy leads scope creep, and often to misuse. Two of them are currently under discussion to elevate them from proposed at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Alternate_accounts & Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Portal. I agree completely that we as a community sometimes fail provide all the required direction and expectations that a virgin contributor may need, the task is more overwhelming then you may at first think. We try to include everything that the new contributor needs to get started on {{welcome}} without seeming to be over whelming, would it be helpful if there was a link to Wikisource:Policies and guidelines on Help:Contents, which is at the top of the {{welcome}}? JeepdaySock (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I really do not know if that would help or not, JeepdaySock. The welcome page is excellent and a new person, depending upon a person's personality, may welcome more or welcome less. We're all different in what we like. Some people love to read all of the rules they can find and lurk about for a period of time before ever posting anything. Other people are the opposite. I don't know how much age difference makes. The areas that I have seen very recently are, in my opinion, very good. I will state that I was here working when the present version of welcome was placed on my page and therefore I paid little attention to it. It came behind me and I ignored it. I had my B.O. account since 2006 and added this account recently. I thought I understood all I needed. There were to be no "sock puppets" -- and I did not use any sock puppet. I wanted to be anonymous at first. The statements I made above refer only to what I have asked while thinking of new people. Rules change, that's simple enough to know. Recently billinghurst was explaining to someone in a thread of conversation that the method of contributing old books while outdated now (I think) was okay when that area was underway. I placed several volumes in that area. But now it has changed to where books (I think) have to be downloaded and placed into those small page squares to edit (what is that called?) Personally, I have no idea how many community people exist. I did not know how this area worked or that it even existed. Obviously changes have to exist, areas need to be refined, we must advance with technological advances, and rules need to be refined. I do know that when I see "policy" as cited above with a large blue question mark and those statements I cited, I would not consider it a rule. I understand we function as community consensus because only that makes sense. I think that when a person should, or can, come to this area for a mistake that there should also be an a statement to that effect sent to the person. I came here only because you left a link but I did not know I could state anything. In a court one cannot just stand up and speak which is what I thought this area was like -- a court. All in all I learned that wikisource is a wonderful place and very unlike some other wiki areas where administrators dominate and some editors are the typical "yes" people that follow along seeming to be like multiple sock puppets.

I just remembered something, a statements somewhere reads, "keep your statements short" so I had best bow out now. I hope that everyone understands I presently have two accounts, this and my BO that I have used since 2006 when I felt safer hiding my identity like most or all others here. I know all of this can be confusing but the "community" did well with my situation of mistakes. There was no instant beheading for mistakes. Wikisource did very well and one can still contribute which wikisource exists for. There are good people here and that is why people like this area so much aside from working on books. It would be interesting to know which editors might just leave and why because I see no reasons from what I have experienced here. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 21:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

JeepdaySock, you cite two areas above. I went there and read and below I will place comments about those same two places.

(1.) " I would like to propose that Wikisource:Alternate accounts be formally recognized as a policy or guideline (one or the other). It has been in draft form since 2009."

(2.)" I would like to propose that Wikisource:Portal be formally recognized as a policy or guideline (one or the other). It has been in draft form since 2006 with a significant upgrade in Feb 2011 to reflect current expectations."

Number 1 unchanged since 2009.

Number 2 goes back to 2006 until your recent statement of 2011.

What do you think about the length of those dates of areas undecided? What would think of a new person reading them and seeing that they are undecided. I have no concerns about number (2) but I have conversed with you on number (1) going back as far as 2009. Why do final decisions, one way or another, on these take so long and especially with number (1)? Does the community just give up on decision making or is it like Washington DC, or is it just concerned about other areas, or is it overwhelmed by so many people? Is not this area, according to its name, "Administrator's noticeboard", for Administrators only? Scriptorium looks like the best place for these questions to me but yet you stated I could write here. Are all of the others who posted Administrators? I ask these questions because I do not understand these situations and presently, for me, the most important one is #1 for new and established editors on wikisource, WS, aka en.ws, and any other way people openly indicate the same place that could confuse a new user. Let us all remember our life back in 2006 and 2009 and the changes that have happened in our life. It is a long period of time is it not? For me it seems like plenty of time to decide upon #1 or #2. I do not make any of these statements or questions with any malice aforethought but rather out of a personal curiosity -- and concerns for new people coming to wikisource. Perhaps, for reasons unknown to me, the statements and questions I have presented make little or no difference regarding decision making, perhaps those two areas you have pointed out to me are not important enough to discuss or decide upon by the community -- I honestly do not know -- I just wonder. But it is my nature to wonder about things I encounter and to speak out if I have a question. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Things don't always move quickly here, the move to create the sock policy occurred in Dec 2009 Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-01#Alternate_Account when I created my sock account, I suggested in Dec 2010 to make it official policy Wikisource:Alternate accounts but, I had terribly bad timing, as a serious and very distasteful discussion had started hours before (I was not aware when I made Dec 2010 proposal), general consensus being to not address it during the other ongoing issue. Then your issue was brought up, which again brought up the subject, so once again it is proposed Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikisource:Alternate_accounts looks to have consensus to be a guideline, I would think in few weeks someone (not me) will close it and make the change. JeepdaySock (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 hacked email servers acting as proxies

1. 193.62.43.202 (talk • contribs)
2. 77.28.104.213 (talk • contribs)

I've blocked two "hacked mail severs acting as proxies", per comment by Wikinews Checkuser (and former Steward), Cspurrier. -- Cirt (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External link watch at meta:

m:User:COIBot has a means to watch for (dodgy) external links across the WMF wikis, and with the help of Beestra, I have configured the link watch for better reporting for English Wikisource. While we are excellent in our patrolling, this gives us some backup to see what external links are being added.

• m:Category:COIBot Local Reports for en.wikisource.org
• m:Category:Open Local reports for en.wikisource.org
• m:Category:Closed Local reports for en.wikisource.org
• m:Category:Ignored Local reports for en.wikisource.org
• m:Category:Stale Local reports for en.wikisource.org
• m:Category:Local to XWiki reports for en.wikisource.org

The reports are written in hieroglyphics (well, sort of), and users are able to close reports either by simply in closing or having manually reverting the links. Note that reports are at the time of output, not regenerated until the next link addition event, so if you want a current situation, click the [?] link in the Link Summary report. If you may be looking to do this regularly, then it helps to utilise the SBHandler gadget at meta. No expectation of anything to be done, just keeping people informed. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)