Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
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 = 1,574,894
No. of articles = 1,024,371
No. of files = 11,165
No. of edits = 5,027,060

No. of pages in Main = 307,347
No. of pages in Page: = 992,872
No. validated in Page: = 169,139
No. proofread in Page: = 256,723
No. not proofread in Page: = 480,952
No. problematic in Page: = 15,958
No. of validated works = 1,449
No. of proofread only works = 745
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 93,642
% transcluded pages in Main = 30.47
Σ pages in Main 

No. of users = 1,508,884
No. of active users = 278
No. of group:autopatrolled = 369
No. in group:sysop = 41
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 24

Checkuser notification[edit]


Users Results
AngelGa.* and Johnson type accounts There is a spammer (maybe a spambot) sitting within a Sri Lankan internet provider's diverse and dynamic IP ranges. They seem to have taken a liking to our site for spam, and I am slowly getting the range of IP addresses ranges and applying soft blocks for an extended period. There is a bit of pattern with usernames, though some I am globally locking rather than locally blocking, generally as it is easier for me, feel free to locally block/watch/... and let me know if you think that I have missed them. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Spamming has continued as they roam around the ADSL ranks of Sri Lanka Telecom. I have soft blocked 2x /16 for an extended period and will see how that progresses. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
range of accounts
Numbers of recent spam accounts have been coming through Pakistan Faisalabad Usf Dslam Central. Soft block on the range to prevent account creation. I am guessing that it is real people sitting at a keyboard to spam, rather than spambots, so this may not be as successful as hoped. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism attacks used to be stored up here at the top of the page so I am reporting it here.

Denial-of-Service type attacks were being waged by repeatedly accessing the same user page, on the order of thousands of times per day. It peaked in early-march with 90,000 hits, and then again in mid-March and early-April at around 40,000 hits per day. ResScholar (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

What is it that you are wanting done? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to notify administrators in case we start to see degradation of performance, like delays on the server. They will be apprised that this "service vandalism" may be a possible cause.
Denial-of-service attacks are fairly common to large websites, but I have never seen such an attack at Wikisource. If you or any other administrator knows of anyone I should notify of this attack who works with the server and may be able to take preventative measures, please let me know. ResScholar (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if these play a role in that or not but there is no way these [nearly] non-existant User: pages should be recieving the amount of views that they currently are or recently have... -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys, I asked around about this, and there's been no sign of a DDoS attack. Actually, the exact response was, "if someone's attempting to do that, they're probably not doing a very good job :)" The current belief is that it's most likely some bot or spider that's screwed up. Given the size of the traffic, it'll throw off the whole-project page view counts a bit. Ops will keep an eye out, and no big worries, but big thanks for noticing and posting about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention. You might want to look into...
* Special:HideBanners - view stats
...too. It is suppose to be cookie activated or something after donating to the wiki-foundation (seems unlikely; if even half of that @ $1 a hit was true, I'd like a new BMW for Christmas btw [3 series is fine]).

I don't know why such a convoluted local solution to hide banners is needed in the first place. Anyway, for a page that doesn't (or shouldn't?) exist, its certainly not a redlink and really busy over time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that every instance of triggering that page is a donation; I think that the way this works, the page is triggered every single time a donor (or maybe anyone who has clicked the button to hide the banner?) visits any page—which, if you look at a hundred pages today, could mean a hundred times. At any rate, the spike in November is expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Okie-dokie remove the ~11 million hits for November and that is still some percentage of ~3 million hits that should not be possible to count in the first place. If somebody donates to the foundation, they should recieve a barnstarn-like banner full of thank yous & such on their User: page or similar - end of story; not hassle everybody else by invoking a cookie-reliant banner that non-donator's wouldn't be able to see to begin with (note the red x for lack of an image file) by design and [most likely] that remaining Users disable from seeing through their preference settings at some point in their wiki-lifetime. I'm begining to think that faux double-nonsense is by design to quietly inflate the bottom line traffic numbers or something. Maybe its been like that for so long nobody bothers to question it never mind be aware of it? (Even funnier: almost 92 million hits to just the top 8 English WikiWhatevers this past year alone). Either way, its out in the open now - what gets done about it now would be by choice & up to the higher-ups I guess.

Back on point. The crazy traffic has pretty much stopped on 3 of the 4 Users mentioned on or about the 16th of this month so Kudos for that. Moving forward @ June, the only "strange" activity that persists [for en.WS] still point to...

... the former being listed before. Can you point someone to these 2 & have them look into it as well? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Umm folks, as one of the named pair above I'm happy if there is anything I can do (or not do—block me for a period if that helps getting to the bottom of this.) I am curious as to the conclusions and will assist in any way I can. AuFCL (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how the existence of a web cookie "hassles everybody else", and posting a barnstar-like banner is both not going to work for logged-out donors (which is most of them) or for donors who value their privacy.
Fundraising happens year-round, with a focus in November and early December. Probably all of those hits are valid.
AuFCL, one of the hypotheses is that this traffic is driven by a poorly written botnet that is scraping websites for text to add to spammy e-mail messages (to get them past e-mail filters by having "random" text at the bottom of the message). If that's what's going on, then blocking you couldn't have any benefit at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey there. I followed a link from Wikidata and wound up on this project, only to find that I has been pinged. I have no idea why people (or, more likely, bots) are looking at my non-existent Wikisource user page in large numbers, but it looks like in the past month, my user page here has gotten 23 times more hits than my user page on English Wikipedia, where I am actually active. So... good luck, I guess. I don't think I know anything that can help. Sven Manguard (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
There's some (I believe) related details at English Wikipedia's Village pump (technical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Usurpation Request[edit]

D_abhi → Abhinav[edit]

I would like to change my username to complete the SUL process. Confirmatory diff. Thank you! D abhi (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You should be good to go with the SUL process now.--BirgitteSB 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Global renames available from 8 July[edit]

With the forthcoming update 1.24wmf12, which will roll-out to enWS on 8 July, there will now be a function available to stewards to undertake renames. This wiki should be aware of the proposed policy m:Global rename policy and the discussion that has taken place at Stewards' noticeboard.

I would be interested to hear from our 'crats (@Zhaladshar, BirgitteSB, Hesperian:) by which means they will be undertaking renames in light of this change. One thing that I would like to highlight is that if renames are undertaken to a new name singularly at a wiki, then this will inhibit a global rename, due to the global rename tool requiring a clean target username rename help. So to my understanding, for discombobulated accounts, there will still need to rename and usurp as per existing practices, though for fresh renames, the 'crats may wish to redirect users to m:Steward requests/Username changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested also to hear about how we are going to handle this. I picked the log on I am using now, long before I realized I was going to become w:Wikiaddict I have been considering an upgraded name for some time. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Just will need to be wary of counts, and still seeking that clarification. With your total, you should be okay. For me, na-ah. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Whatever you choose, you definitely don't want to end up with a non-global account.
If you're trying to figure out whether you have a global account, go to Special:Preferences and look for "Global account status:" "All in order!" is the best answer. "In migration" may or may not require any action. Anything else usually means that your account will need to be renamed during the next year (months from now). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Global account status: All in order! so that is good. If I go to and do not find the name I want to use, does that mean no one is using it anyplace? Jeepday (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
"global account status: All in order! Your account is active on 63 project sites."

I would like to have my name changed from William Maury Morris II to Maury. —Maury (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you can request this at m:Steward requests/Username changes. They're probably still updating the directions for the process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Billinghurst above: I guess my approach would be something like this:

  1. Perform the usual check of validity of request. i.e. we're not being gamed / trolled.
  2. Check if the account is global. If not global, then proceed with rename. Else...
  3. Educate user on global versus local renames. Explain that a local rename will detach the local account from the global account. Explain how to request a global rename.
  4. If the user confirms that they really want to enact a local rename, then shrug shoulders and proceed.

How does that sound?

Hesperian 02:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My method of operation is pretty much the same as Hesperian's. I will make sure the right method of renaming is offered and made clear to the user requesting the name change so that the change can be as efficient as possible. I'll still do it however they want at the end of the day, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that it would be preferable not to create any more local accounts. That's just setting up the user to get stuck with an unpleasant, forced rename next year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]



I created Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0.

Please feel free to modify it with formatting adjustments, etc., as you wish.

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: needs to be added to Help:Copyright tags. Also would be worth starting the general conversation at WS:S on whether that should be our new default. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Need input for upcoming critical work[edit]

Hi folks,

After months of peeking, poking and proding with little to show for it, I've finally struck gold.

Compendium III: Copyright Office Practices will [bite my tongue] "soon" be a reality and - hopefully - will resolve the many outstanding copyright questions we have. See the mock-up of the new site here...

UPDATE: Copyright Office Announces Beta Revision of Compendium of Practices
The Compendium III of Copyright Office Practices is released in beta form on July 31, 2014. The new Compendium III contains the body of Office practices and procedures.

All the links seem to be active but the true content is not up yet. The only worthwhile active link (that I could find) was to the 10-page Preface .pdf which seems to be well past the "initial draft" stage. It's uploaded and Index'd here...

  • Index:Comp3-pre-0415.pdf
    Correction - more Chapters have been added (again, only as .pdfs) since my last run-through of the site earlier today (Chapters 400, 1200, 1600 & 1700 afaict).

Question now is how to proceed and the reason I bring this to your attention here and now. Please look the site and the Preface over and start this "eventual" project off right. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you are asking. It seems like you are asking something about how to format the work in Wikisource when it becomes available, but I doubt that is something you would have an issue with, so I am lost. I know we have a discussion at Possible copyright violations, pending this work. Jeepday (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - I don't know how I missed this.

My point is to have a discussion on how best to host this ahead of starting it so that all projects can call upon & benefit from it while allowing en.WS some degree of ease in maintaining it both at the same time.

Without actually "seeing" what is now called a beta release (update added above) slated for July 31, uploading & transcribing a single PDF/DjVu containing the entire body of work seems like the wrong way to go if we want to be able to always host latest revision(s) in the mainspace. Uploading each section or chapter seperately and transcribing them seperately seems to make more sense in this case - well that is what my "gut" is telling me at the moment that is. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Marking patrolled pages?[edit]

I've checked through every recent page on the "PSM watch", most marked with patrolling required, but I don't know how to mark them (Page namespace) patrolled. Can someone please advise? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 05:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a "[Mark as patrolled]" link on the diff page. Hesperian 05:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping the ignorant.— Ineuw talk 06:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
@Ineuw: If there is a string of edits to a page, you will also see a [Mark as patrolled] for the Page: ns page, under the image (bottom right). I think that something similar applies in the main ns, however, I rarely see a string of edits from non-patrolled these days to easily confirm that. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. In this case there was no mark to which I was used to. That's why I asked.— Ineuw talk 16:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled request[edit]

Hi, as suggested in this link, I wish to request Autopatrolled rights for myself. Thanks a lot! --3BRBS (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Super! glad you want to be a trusted user who regularly creates pages and has demonstrated they are familiar with Wikisource's policies and guidelines You might start by reading Beginner's guide to Wikisource then if you could just make a few hundred contributions to the site, you will have the Autopatrolled rights in no time. Jeepday (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Jeepday, thanks for your advice, but I mostly made my contributions in Spanish:. It seems there is no place in the Spanish Wikisource to request this!--3BRBS (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Autopatroller is per-language edition, not universal across Wikisources. You might try asking one of the active admins on Spanish Wikisource if you want it there. Prosody (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Mh, Prosody, thanks for your answer, but I already asked one of the administrators, her reply was: "I would gladly do it, but in Wikisource it seems that it doens't exist". I have only two administrators left to ask :/ --3BRBS (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing at the English Wikisource is going to have an impact at Spanish Wikisource. As you can see at the Global account manager you have auto patrol at but not at, if they don’t have a manual change over to auto patrol at, presumably it is automatic after some number of edits. Currently you have 657, you might ask when it would be granted than you will have a target to aim for. Jeepday (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Jeepday, Indeed, and thanks for taking the time to reply. It seems that the only bureocrat in is the user that told me that it seems that the option doesn't exist". Let me ask her about this automatic granting. Thanks!--3BRBS (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it seems it is the entire Autopatrollers group itself that doesn't exist - not just the option to somehow include/exclude Users to/from it.

If the group existed on es.WS, it would be automatically listed on this Special page via API(?) like it does for en.WS on Special:ListGroupRights. In light of the apparent lack of an Autopatrollers group on es.WS, I doubt there is anything like an automatic "trigger" routine setup there either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Patrolling is a feature that can be enabled or disabled on a site-wide basis in the LocalSettings.php file ($wgUseRCPatrol = false). Many of the smaller Wikimedia sites do not have it enabled. Hesperian 02:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
@3BRBS: To have autopatrolled, your community needs to discuss it, and reach a consensus that you want it. From there a bugzilla: request should be filed under site requests, and the techheads will get to it. We went through the process with the discussion in WS:S it will be in the archives with the resulting request at bugzilla:18307. You can find configurations at and search for groupOverrides. So start that discussion locally and some of us can provide assistance once the discussion is concluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Additional. Apart from the addition of the right, you should also discuss who can assign and remove it. We opted to have that implemented at the administrator level. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi billinghuurst, I'll bring this helpfull information to the Spanish Wikisource, to see what can be done there. It seems that there is no inconvenient on granting the autopatrolled status (I asume), so it's more like a tecnical issue :)--3BRBS (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Wait, woah, if patrolling isn't set up on Spanish Wikisource then there's no point in having autopatrolled status there, it wouldn't do anything. Autopatrolled status just makes all your edits marked as patrolled automatically, nothing else. Prosody (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It is okay, they have RCPatrol set to true (init file and search for wgUseRCPatrol), so they have patrollable edits, and their patrol log shows evidence of admins patrolling. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

When Moving Pages[edit]

I was going through some soft redirects to delete, and I have noticed an issue being overlooked by several administrators so I think it better to leave a note here rather than go around to all the individual user talk pages. It seems to me that the best practice when moving a page would be to use the the what links here feature to find and correct all of the links to the moving page. Especially when you think your move creates an unneeded redirect and you decide to place the the dated soft redirect template on it the page. If you are doing using the soft redirect template, you should be expecting the page to be deleted in two months and any links to be completely broken at that time. While the soft redirect template is basically a road sign to direct any external websites to fix links, we still have to remember to fix the internal ones as well. I am fixing these before I delete, but in the meantime links have been broken for 16 months. Please note that I am working some old categories, so if this has already been somewhat recently addressed please ignore!BirgitteSB 03:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

At one point User:TalBot was dealing with all the parts of this process on a regular basis, including adjusting any internal links that had been missed. However, its owner Grafzahl hasn't been around for quite some time and so the task has fallen into abeyance. If someone is able and willing to take over Talbot's function, then there won't be a need to do the link adjustments or the deletions manually for the outstanding months. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I knew Talbot used to do the deleting, but I did't know that the check before deletion was being relied upon as the primary prompt to repair links. I don't think I understood that there was a script written for repairing links. I still hold that best practice would be to immediately repair broken links created by the move. Even if you strongly want to have the link repair done by bots, there is no need to wait two months to run the repair script.BirgitteSB 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean that we shouldn't repair the links at the time of moving a page, rather that if any got missed accidently, then TalBot could look after them as a part of the mop-up. What I was really hoping we could avoid, is spending time (and flooding RC) with manual deletions. However, it seems I'm too late with this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not concerned with the irregular broken link being over-looked. I found that links were left broken far more often than not. The rest of it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. BirgitteSB 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the next batch of soft redirect maintenance was scheduled for tomorrow. However, it appears Category:Soft redirects/February 2013 is already gone. I left a message for User:Kathleen.wright5, see User talk:Kathleen.wright5#Soft_redirects.--GrafZahl (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are replying to here.BirgitteSB 04:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is: TalBot is active with soft redirect maintenance again, just not in the current instance, for that has already been handled by you and Kathleen. Sorry for being unclear. Thinking about it, I should have placed a notice of new activity on this page, too. Sorry.
As for early link repair, feel free to do it or not to do it, TalBot surely doesn't mind ;)
I think it does make sense not to do it if you have a lot of better stuff to do and want to leave the grunt work to the bot… except of course that I'm active again for only three weeks now, and then only on some weekends, and there's a huge backlog. But slowly, eventually, we should get back to normal again.
--GrafZahl (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Changing PieterJanR status to autopatroller[edit]

Because this is a new area for me, I decided not to make the change myself, but recommend that User:PieterJanR be given autopatroller status by another admin. He's been on Wikisource since February 2013, and contributed nearly 400 edits. While his contribution is exclusively focused on PSM, (another reason for me just to recommend to deflect assumed bias :-) ), he seems to know what he is doing. ty.— Ineuw talk 04:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If you think that he deserves the right, then make the change Special:UserRights/PieterJanR. You were promoted to be an admin by the community based on our belief that you have ability to make the judgment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I second that! Btw, I've already done the userrights change; next time I'll leave it to you. ;-) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur, but it is always ok, to ask if you don’t feel comfortable with something. Jeepday (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the confidence.— Ineuw talk 17:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Local Hebrew Charinsert gadget error[edit]

I found a minor issue with the Hebrew Charinsert in which five characters were out of order. Reported the issue to Bugzilla as Bug 66348. The gist of it is that it's a local problem, originally copied from en.Wikipedia. I can easily correct the problem here, but don't know where the .js page is. Or, ask someone in the know to copy it from English Wikipedia, where it was already corrected. — Ineuw talk 20:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

All .js & .css files reside in the MediaWiki namespace for future reference. In this case the specific file is MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js (I've already matched what WP has).

These [character] sets were meant to be locally reviewed and revised as needed by those fluent/familiar enough to be considered experts - not just blindly copied from other projects. That invitation is still open to anyone who is willing to invest the time btw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The character order is fixed. Please understand that I mentioned Wikipedia only because Amir E. Aharoni has corrected it there this morning. Otherwise, I would have gladly done it myself. — Ineuw talk 23:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
No understood that @Ineuw: - my point was more about having both completness as well as correctness whenever possible. If that is the entire Hebrew language's character set; so be it (it seem kind of "short" to me however).

I also should have mentioned before you can find the associated files for Gadgets thru Special:Gadgets and the definition(s) of "active" gadgets' settings thru MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional links. As for the the Hebrew alphabet, it is the complete set. — Ineuw talk 07:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nav sidebar's Random family of links[edit]

... no longer seem to be working as before. No matter which of the three I select (Random work, Random author or Random transcription), they all seem to ignore the designated namespace assigned to each and now provide random results across all(?) the namespaces. Can others verify this behavior? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I just got the Page: namespace for all three. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The other Random page link that I know of (WS:PotM) gives a 404 error now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I just tweaked the random validation string, hopefully that 404 error is now fixed. Still, that is unrelated to the sidebar-3 issue as they are "built-in", Special: namespace induced; not external tools, scripts or add-ons.

Anyone else see the same with those 3? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I must have tried things out just after POTM was fixed (I confirm working now.) I also confirm the three sidebar links return random pages without regard to namespaces (i.e. exactly per original complaint.) AuFCL (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I don't think it is just en.WS anymore - not working on either. The single Bugzilla that I could find seems related, although its a couple of months old now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Special:Randomrootpage and Special:Random are different. I think that Random is replicating the built-in API call mw:API:Random so that we have

so it would seem that the implicit look up function that used to exist with the forward slash and canonical namespace component seem broken. I have logged to bugzilla:66477 and the pages for reference are mw:Help:Random page and mw:Manual:Random page. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure about that 'canonical namespace associations being broken'; Special:Random/file seems to work everytime I've ticked on it for example so the problem seems limited to some associations but not all of them (or the problem lies elsewhere altogether - yet the API using "file" for the namespace also fails while at the same time the interlink [seems to] work).
Fwiw... I saw something in the bugzilla about a link(?) pointing incorrectly or needed updating. If you were looking for SpecialRandompage.php or SpecialRandomredirect.php, they reside in the . . ./includes/specials sub-folder of mediawiki/core[.git]. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Please forgive me for being a total pedant, but according to my reading of the API (search for "list=random") the correct syntax demands rnnamespace be the numeric namespace-id, so this might work better // So far it hasn't failed to toss out File: references for me. AuFCL (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So Billinghurst's previous API work/fail associations (above) proves little in the way of any "broken canonical associations" theory since only a numeric input for namespace was proper in the first place [edited mine]. So its still unclear why Special:Random/file seems to work (yes?) while Special:Random/author does not. Only difference between the two is File: is not set to allow sub-pages (just like Special:Random/category and Special:Random/mediawiki do not allow sub-pages). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regrettably I have no idea if the "sub-pages" allowed theory is even relevant; but FWIW I confirm only Special:Random/file out of the above set seems to work as expected for me. All of ../author, ../category, ../mediawiki throw up pages outside of the requested namespace for me. AuFCL (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for confirming - my results are exactly the same. And you just proved 'sub-page settings' plays no role in any of this via MediaWiki & Category test results. Nevertheless, it was the obvious difference between most of our namespaces ( see here ) and had to be vetted either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I don't know if this is helping but I tried a little experimentation on WikiPedia for contrast. Over there, Special:Random/file (occasionally) throws up User_talk: pages for me (but mainly File: space.) One more fact(oid)? AuFCL (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Random page is designed to work on content namespaces (read the above linked pages) , and for us the wgContentNamespaces is
'default' => array( NS_MAIN )

+enwikisource' => array( 102, 104, 106, 114 )
(as per api; look for content annotations)
accordingly main, Author, Page, Index, Translation, which renders the remainder of your argument irrelevant. That you are seeing quirky behaviour outside of scope, should be considered other quirky behaviour. At enWP, they have only one content ns, so the tool should be working within their more limited ns scope. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Content= or otherwise, it was working all-around up until a couple of weeks ago max. Same story with the Manual: & Extension: namespaces (both content= ) on for example
... both fail within 2 or 3 tries if not right away.

Same story with mw:Extension:Randomrootpage but worse. Not only does Special:RandomRootpage no longer obey targeted namespaces anymore (Special:RandomRootpage/Author, Special:RandomRootpage/Main) but it can't even limit itself not to return sub-pages within whatever namespace it decides to "jump" to.

Plus RandomRedirect still behaves as before ( Special:RandomRedirect/Main | Special:RandomRedirect/Author | Special:RandomRedirect/Portal ). Altogether, if it's not recent-jQuery-update related then I can't begin to guess where or what to narrow the issue down to. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added Krinkle to the bug as he is recent informer of the jquery narrative and may be able to give some authoritative guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bawolff: and @Reedy: have both active on this bug (thanks!) and it is set to roll out with the release on Tues 1 July (wmf11). Check deployments closer to the date for the planned time. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

fwiw... it seems like they fixed the Random special-extension (was related to recent Cirrus Search changes) but it didn't cascade down to mw:Extension:Randomrootpage. I left a note at the same discussion dealing with plain old Random on Wikipedia's Village Pump (technical) page and figured best to mention it here too in hopes of moving things along. Please advise as needed. Thnx. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

One is an extension, and one is core, there may just be different release dates. The bugzilla said a release for 1 July, so just need to watch next week's release. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a disclosure policy[edit]

With WMFs updated terms of use, I see that we should be taking up the option to exclude ourselves from a part, and have put forward a proposal to that extent at WS:S#RFC: Disclosure policy aka Special:Diff/4932804billinghurst sDrewth 04:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Purpose unblock of Crum375[edit]

Crum375 on enwikisource is an SUL account of Special:CentralAuth/Crum375, so probably admin blocked the wrong user.--GZWDer (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@BirgitteSB: This is one of your blocks from 2010. I know nothing to comment either way. I do see that the person is a sysop at enWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

New script to assist moves from Commons[edit]

Occasionally one of the files that we place/use at Commons is found to be outside of hosting requirements/scope of Commons, so they wish to delete it (deletions usually noted in edits by CommonsDelinker). This has been problematic for us where the file can legitimately be hosted here. There is a now a tool available to Commons admins that can assist in their moving the file to the 'using' wiki, prior to deletion. So if anyone notices a used file being deleted at Commons that could be kept within our copyright restrictions, then please ask the deleting administrator to resurrect the file, and to move it to enWS before again deleting that work. If you fail with that Commons admin, then please ask one of the local denizens with admins rights at Commons (listed below), or myself to do so.

For Commons admins (@EVula, Hesperian, Jusjih, Yann:), if this is of interest the add-on created by Magnus is an OAuth application that is added to your common.js file at Commons, the text to be added is

importScript('MediaWiki:ExCommons.js') ;

so when you start the deletion you will see towards the top of the deletion screen that you have the option to push the file prior to deletion. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Jump up to:" labels for references — culled[edit]

Either I have had my brain on complete holiday, or we have recently had labels on refs in references changed within the global system, or monobook has something weird happening … anyway with all book references I have been seeing each reference listing prefixed with the text "Jump up to:". I have culled that through editing MediaWiki:Cite references link accessibility label and redirect MediaWiki:Cite references link many accessibility label to the other file for consistency. If that is deemed wrong, please continue this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Easiest would be pointing to an example... I restored the one "Jump up" message just to see what you were talking about and I can't seem to find any use or appearance of the message in normal ref tag uses. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Not showing today, it was showing every reference prepended with "Jump up to:" <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Got one Page:My Life in Two Hemispheres, volume 2.djvu/91billinghurst sDrewth 07:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I am not sure why I have to demonstrate this, or undoing the edit just for a peek. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Just being proactive instead of reactive - plus we don't typically change site wide settings without verifying a thing or two along the way first. I for example can't reproduce either message under both monobook & vector in this case. The messages don't seem to be new additions to the MediaWikia message bundle as far as I can tell either so it's likely something else recent triggering them to come thru.

Please blank them both if you can't deal with seeing them until the next cycle if you must this time - but I'd much rather see if others expierence the same and troubleshoot from there personally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have spoken to Hoo about it, and he will have a look. It may be a Firefox thing along with something in the last release, it may be more. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine until I get some more free time to look into this specifically. I will blank them both - redirects in that MediaWiki namespace are not optimal since its not setup to behave as a normal namespace as you seem to believe. The default is always there (MediaWiki:Cite_references_link_many_accessibility_label/qqx), lying 'in wait' even when overriden so redirecting stuff just bloats the number of jumps needed to reach a message or label - even a blank one. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)