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 = 1,786,702
No. of articles = 735,422
No. of files = 13,513
No. of edits = 5,707,844


No. of pages in Main = 325,083
No. of pages in Page: = 1,160,338
No. validated in Page: = 218,193
No. proofread in Page: = 331,523
No. not proofread in Page: = 500,227
No. problematic in Page: = 20,734
No. of validated works = 1,815
No. of proofread only works = 990
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 112,883
% transcluded pages in Main = 34.72
Σ pages in Main 


No. of users = 2,402,623
No. of active users = 319
No. of group:autopatrolled = 410
No. in group:sysop = 36
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 27

Checkuser notification[edit]


Log[edit]

Users Results
172.56.0.0/16 xwiki lta - related history: w:User:Meters/marciano spammer -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Local renaming will no longer be possible from 1 September 2014. To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Hesperian 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Htonl resignation[edit]

Can someone close the Htonl admin re-confirmation discussion in accordance with Htonl's resignation from the position? Cheers! BD2412 T 19:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Other[edit]

Falkland Islands disputes permeating into Wikisource[edit]

Author:David_Jewett page history

Hello, I apologize for bringing this to your attention but it's spiraling out of control: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Wee Curry Monster is well known in English Wikipedia for getting involved in arguments/edit wars on the topics of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, having been banned on both of them on separate occasions.[8] (I can't link to the Gibraltar incident because of w:WP:OUTING concerns) I fear that these controversies are now being pushed into Wikisource, or at least on the topic of the Falkland Islands, which is the one I'm interested in.

Wee Curry Monster is determined to somehow include the accusations of piracy here too, to damage Jewett's image. He first tried to straightly list pirate as one of his occupations, even if no reliable, secondary source says that (and I stress secondary, because some of his contemporary enemies did called in him "pirate" back in the time). He couldn't do that because he found that other editor agreed with me, so he moved goalposts and brought here the full lede[9] that, conveniently, doesn't talk about the possession ceremony but it does include those comments on alleged piracy.

Template:Author/doc suggest that the description should be short and focused on the author's works. The declaration of possession, conveniently avoided in current description, is what all his published letters are about: without the claim laid on the islands, we wouldn't have his letters in Wikisource. As expected, current author description turns out being even longer that those of Marcel Proust, Edgar Allan Poe or Wolfgang von Goethe.

What are the options here? Should I keep on reverting him? WCM has already been warned but I know him, he won't let go. --Langus-TxT (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Please reach a consensus on the talk page. Hesperian 01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Gents, this wasn't out of control. I wasn't even aware that Langus-TxT had come here making all these allegations against me (is there no requirement on wikisource to inform editors there is a discussion about them?) FWIW Langus is an Argentine editor who has been stalking my edits on en.wikipedia for years. His latest, I'm apparently a British Government agent spreading disinformation on the Internet [10].
He has an obsession with removing any material he considers is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim to the Falklands and for some reason has decided that the fact Jewitt was convicted of piracy in absentia in Portugual is one such fact that is detrimental. He has tried unsuccessfully to remove any mention of it on en.wikipedia. You know what guys, this is your playground, I have no desire to bring conflict here and if your want to side with this guy and say he is right. You know what knock yourselves out. But at least let me play on a level playing field, I can't respond if I don't know I'm being talked about.
I don't think I was being unreasonable to expect text that stood unchallenged for months had some degree of consensus and was genuinely trying to improve coverage. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for not letting you know. Since you edited here on the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, It seemed reasonable to assume that you would have an awareness of discussions initiated on the 13th. You were tagged into the discussion so it should have come up in your notifications.
As for the editorial dispute, I protected it as I found it. I think you should both drop the ad hominem arguments and engage constructively on the talk page.
Hesperian 01:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"You were tagged into the discussion" — Ah, no you weren't. On wikipedia, {{u}} creates a user link that also served to notify. Here, it only underlines. I believe Langus-TxT attempted to tag you in and thus notify you, but failed to do so due to template confusion. I too thought you had been tagged in. I apologise again for the misunderstanding. Hesperian 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're unreasonable for changing text that stood unchallenged for years and then when your changes stand for months, acting like your changes have clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually It hadn't stood for years, the comment I restored was in the first and subsequent versions. And by any standard text that stood unchallenged for months is a consensus, I was quite willing to discuss it. You seem intent on personalising matters, I was not being unreasonable but by imposing a solution and vetoing every attempt to improve the description you were. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not taking part in the primary topic of discussion here, but I do refute the claim that "by any standard text that stood unchallenged for months is a consensus". No, it isn't. We've had vandalism hang around that long sometimes. We are a much smaller project than Wikipedia, with a much smaller group of regular contributors. You might be making a statement based on experiences at Wikipedia, and if so, such a statement is almost never going to be true here. We are not like Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It was very much based on my experience at Wikipedia so thank you for explaining. No that wasn't entirely what I meant, its cited content that one editor seeks to remove as he simply sees it as detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim, not whether it has merit. Those were his words by the way not mine. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What's really frustrating is that you both thought it was okay to bring this argument over here at wikisource. Arguments for any reason are usually unconstructive here at wikisource, and don't happen often. What I would like to propose is a way to turn this argument into a beneficial contribution to wikisource and to your argument. I encourage you to both go out find documents and evidence, scan them, add them to the commons, come back here and digitize them. I've already found some scans that could use some digitizing, over at c:Category:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands and c:Category:David Jewett. We would love to see you both constructively work together to expand your research in the topic of David Jewett by digitizing documents related to him here. Of course, some documents would need to be digitized to [11], but we will gladly accept the translations here. In conclusion, please find more constructive uses of your time spent here, rather than worry about a small descriptive paragraph. Thanks --Rochefoucauld (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

2602:304:af53:3e99:a935:54d:5b3f:9fc (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISRDNStraceRBLshttpblock userblock log) - User was blocked at enWP for 2 years in October 2014 for recurrent long-term vandalism. Today, the user vandalized Scriptorium. The Haz talk 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: global SUL migration underway[edit]

The migration of all unattached accounts to being attached SUL accounts has started, and it is sort of progressing by wiki, so at some point in the next week we will see a string of account renames to ...~enwikisource. It is what it is. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What should be done in response to Special:BrokenRedirects listing User: or User talk: pages? I also note a new message in investigating some of those pages stating 'no such account' or something... should we even bother fixing these if that is the case re: ststus? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete them if they are that broken. Not sure why they exist however, will wait until this maintenance phase is over and see if it is still a problem rather than a quirk. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Return of the Boxing spammer[edit]

See w:User:Meters/marciano spammer for some background. Has returned over the past few days. I've been reverting the addition of a set text on various boxing and sportsman related pages and talk pages here. I've also been protecting the pages to autoconfirmed only. The result is that I've received various threats e.g. this diff (note the save text as well). I have no intention of giving in (of course), but I think the gentleman needs to cool his heels for a while. I don't know how to do a range block, but the IPs all start with 172.56. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For the IPv4, for a set x.x.x.0 to x.x.x.255 it is a /24, so is x.x.x.0/24 to block. Here we have 172.56.32.x through 172.56.33.x so we have 172.56.32.0/23 (now blocked). Information at mw:Help:Range blocksbillinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Theghettozoo[edit]

<mode sweetness="engaged">If there is anyone here not asleep at the helm would they please be so kind as to evaluate these and assess whether this individual is worthy either of welcome and re-education; or to commend them to scuttle off back under the rock from which previously they came?</mode> AuFCL (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

been managed — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

IPs attempting commercial spam[edit]

Something seems to be using a lot of similar IP addresses to put short commercial spam phrases (but unlinked) on Talk pages.

MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Spambot Deleted contributions and /24 range blocked for 3 days. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Looking at https://whois.domaintools.com/46.229.140.12 it is a Russian mobile phone range. You can see that I blocked it globally I blocked it globally the week before. I would suggest that you give the /24 a year-long block, anon-only. I doubt that we are ever going to see good edits from it by anon IPs. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To note a file deletion at Commons which I have asked to be reverted[edit]

Please note the deletions shown at [12] where an administrator at Commons has deleted a file. I do not believe that the file deletion was appropriate and have asked that file be undeleted. Once that is done, we will need to reverse the deletions shown on the log. I will again address the matter of Commons admin actions with Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed and resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have sprouted an opinion to Commons admins here. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
As a follow-up to this issue, I think there should be a bot that checks the deletion requests each day and if any nominated file is used outside Commons, it would leave a note on the talk pages of affected articles. I recall a bot doing this some years back and I think it would be a courteous thing to do. However, I'm not a coder, so if there is anybody with such knowledge, you're assistance would be highly appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not possible for a bot to do. The listings at Commons are incomplete thanks to a bug that was introduced years ago when some of the projects, like Wiktionary, were made case-sensitive. I put in a bugzilla report about this years ago, but the problem was never corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I have, however, asked for some kind of automated notification at our VP when Commons files used here are actually deleted there. That should be doable. BD2412 T 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would favour a script doing this for those files nominated by script in a similar way to the file moving script when a file is renamed or in fact the household favourite Commons Delinker. Green Giant (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

{{math}} in charinsert?[edit]

Recent edits to MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js happened to draw my attention to the apparent anomaly that the "Math & logic" section contains a prototypic reference to {{math}}. As this template does not exist local to enWS (but is present at e.g. enWP) should either:

  1. charinsert be further updated to remove the unused template, or
  2. w:Template:Math be copied here?

As a devotee of direct use of <math> I personally would not be voting to retain the prototype for {{math}}—i.e. option 1—but expect most people probably feel otherwise and go for option 2. AuFCL (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 1 Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

After the discussion at WS:S coming to nought with the discussion about wikilinks, this person's continued adding of links outside the guidance, reversion by him of edits for the links removal, the continuing of addition of works outside of scope, etc. I have placed a temporary block on this user and started the conversation with the user about how we are going to seek compliance with our editing guidelines. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What has he added that was outside of scope? WS:SCOPE pretty clearly includes all the newspaper articles he's been adding.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A block seems excessive, for a generally respected contributor. Just my opinion. BD2412 T 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Seek someone uninvolved to carry out said conversation. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: He is adding excerpts of text, examples are one line of a newspaper article, then ellipsis, then the last line. Excerpts are out of scope. He has been asked and asked to not add excerpts. He will add series of excerpts and they are not completed. I have moved these incomplete works back to his user pages for completion, and they are moved back without change. The processes of conversation, and of example have been attempted. @BD2412: I have tried the conversation methodology on his talk page, he has asked the community opinion about links, he still continues the linking outside the guidance and reverts edits that remove the links. @Charles Matthews: I have sought out others. I have commented on user talk page and now I have posted here. I have expressed politely and by example what is required, I don't expect to be reverted and ignored. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Indeed, a dispute that is not being resolved by methods traditional here. I offer my services, for what they are worth. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: I'd welcome any alternate process to have this user align their additions with the existing guidance, or offer valid reasons why the works/links they are adding are exceptions to the guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Oh just grow up and accept CM has given you a perfect out. You are quite clearly too close to this issue to even pretend to be impartial. At this stage it simply does not matter whether you are right or wrong. Just formalise the inevitable. AuFCL (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose activation of bulk deletion and bulk undeletion Special pages[edit]

Rather than reanimating the recent "death" of the bulk mass delete Admin gadget with more tweaking and patching of a "somewhat fudged" script to begin with, I'd like to formally propose the activation of two MediaWiki extensions restoring not only the mass bulk deletion ability but would add the ability to mass bulk undelete as well. Activation would result in a new Special: page available only to Admins & 'Crats (or just 'Crats? or some mix of certain 'Crats and certain Admins?; please discuss if need be).

There will always be a need for these abilities regardless of how infrequent that need may have been to date. Plus there is no justification that I can think of — nor does it seem fair — to continue to call upon only those fluent in scripting, .php or happen to be wmf-lab hounds to handle this need.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)



  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.— enabling both extensions for all en.wikisource sysops & 'crats. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for 'crats at least. Not sure about sysops. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support—The need for bulk delete, while occasional, is definitely there. I'm not sure that bulk undelete would be used, but it might as well be there. With respect to who has access, the unfairness that George mentions with respect to scripting would also be there if restricted to 'crats alone. It would basically mean that cleanup where bulk delete would be useful would have to wait for a 'crat to be available, rather than the next available sysop. If there are doubts about a sysop having access to the tool, then there should be doubts about that sysop having any of the tools. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - speaking from experience, there are times when things need to be deleted en masse e.g. uploads of one user or a large number of pages in a category, and having both of these tools will be useful for admins. Green Giant (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMpaa (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Translation:Manshu[edit]

The work Translation:Manshu is starting to look more like an analytical work, or at the bare minimum a well-annotated work, and to me it is starting to look more like something that is appropriate for WB, than solely a Wikisource:Translations type of work. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's at best marginal for Wikibooks, and we don't have a translation here. I certainly wouldn't call it an analytical work. I don't think we should do anything until it has finished, or at least stopped progressing, at which point if necessary we can narrow it to a strict translations or move it to Wikibooks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but since you are threatening to remove material I will not put any more work in until a resolution is found — if you do not want it in its entirety, I will simply move to write it elsewhere, and Wikisource will not receive the content. I am through with having good content deleted (see I just quit Wikipedia after 15 years in protest at content deletion) Have your discussion now, the format is clear. If you are not happy, I will remove it and work with a traditional publisher. Do give me a chance to copy the content, though. Pratyeka (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: Rest assured that we are not looking at any hasty decisions or any retributive action. We are trying to work out the best spot within the WMF framework to host your work. It is borderline for the Translation namespace (Wikisource:Translations and Wikisource:News/2013-07#Translation_namespace) as it has elements of annotation, which is why I was seeking opinion. If you build it in your user namespace, it is definitely within scope, and we have never been that particular, it is more whether it is for Translation: ns as per our discussion to create that namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It is more the threat of waiting until the translation is finished and then modifying it significantly by removing entire facets that worries me. Frankly if that is even a possibility I will publish elsewhere. The amount of work involved in a serious translation is huge. To put one's name on something, after all of that effort, and then have its integrity destroyed by those with only a limited grasp of the subject — seemingly at a whim to suit some bureaucratic notion — is unacceptable in terms of respect to the author, but also importantly destroys the integrity and stability of the work for formal citation, academic or otherwise. I suggest that the entire notion of user-supplied original translations on Wikisource needs to have a different policy with regards to post-facto editing than general pages, in order to respect the integrity of author's work. Pratyeka (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are looking for the unalienable right to put up your translation of a work, which then should be protected from other editing, then maybe English Wikisource is not the place for your work. We are not experts and the site has an open collective editing policy, that said we don't generally see vandalism and we have an expectation of citing of changes. We are aware that translation is a large body of effort, and we have seen failures of that before, which is why we have set up the space more openly, and looking to have the ability to load foreign language texts into the Page: ns, and to translate them for transclusion into the Translation ns:. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
After some consideration I would like to continue however I would ask that in preference to reformatting or manipulation of the work by third parties in future it is moved to Wikibooks without modification. Then, if desired to be modified here, a suitably obvious and large note is added explaining that the translation displayed is not the author's original, which can be found at such-and-such link to Wikibooks. Pratyeka (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalised user page?[edit]

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Materialscientist&oldid=5565427

Seemingly an IP6 user, but could do with some admins taking action promptly.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:Gadgets[edit]

Hey folks?

Has anybody noticed the above is screaming for attention as a complete ****storm of javascript errors (All of the form "Gadget "XXXX" was not loaded. Please migrate it to use ResourceLoader. See <https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Gadgets>.") every time a page is opened for editing? As it is unlikely somebody has mass-deleted something important, is mw.loader.load() still working?

Has somebody not paid an important bill perhaps (but note that the current release of software on WikiSource (1.26wmf17 (6853808) 12:08, 7 August 2015) just happens to bear today's date! I wonder if that could be significant? AuFCL (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Credit to @ShakespeareFan00: for spotting this. [13] seems pertinent. Now who is going to update MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition? ResourceLoader missing from specialchars, ocr etc. etc. AuFCL (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not getting any gadget errors, so please identify each gadget that is problematic for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Delighted to hear that. For me the list is
  • Gadget-specialchars.js
  • Gadget-ContrastReducer.js
  • Gadget-pr test layout.js
  • Gadget-altindex.js
  • Gadget-UserMessages.js
  • Gadget-markblocked.js
  • Gadget-NopInserter.js
  • Gadget-Fill Index.js
I declare this (part) of the problem adequately resolved. Any dissenters? AuFCL (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Proofreading toolbar[edit]

The nett effect is that the Proofreading component of the wikieditor interface is missing altogether. So somehow admins are immune to this particular problem perhaps? AuFCL (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

<shrug> I have added [ResourceLoader] to each, though I have no idea whether it is functionally right. See how it goes. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Well its made a damned good improvement here. NOP-inserter works again and the storm of javascript errors has dwindled considerably. Not all is O.K. because the ProofreadPage menu options (i.e. OCR/Zoom Scan/Over vs Side display) are still AWOL. AuFCL (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Which toolbar are you using? OCR buttons are defined in MediaWiki:Gadget-ocr.js and we may be able to copy that to somewhere where we can play with an alternate; whereas the horizontal layout is embedded in the Mediawiki or the Proofread Page code and that will need to be via Phabricator. I don't have OCR (preferences > gadgets) turned on, nor do I use horizontal layout as default (Preferences > Editing) and don't watch javascript errors, so not sure that I can help overly. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Terminology is always a pain. I have Preferences set to "Show edit toolbar" (OFF), "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" (ON) and "Enable wizards for inserting links..." (OFF). It is my belief the toolbar thus enabled is known as "WikiEditor" but this may need to be corrected. I am trying to describe the toolbar which formerly consisted of a row of icons followed by "Advanced", "Special Chars", "Help" and "Proofread tools" but now displays sans "Proofread tools".

None of this is a showstopper personally but merely acts as an indication that normal service has not been entirely restored. AuFCL (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The 5 cents input (pennies are no longer used in Canada) is that my edit setup is identical to that of AuFCL and the "Proofread" toolbar is still missing. Just checked now. — Ineuw talk 19:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
that's what I get for not checking in earlier today....

What is still not working? just OCR button? (which is there under proofread tools in Win10/Edge for me btw). -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III:In case you missed it, please see this image. This is what I have as of now. We are not so fortunate as to have the Edge browser and Windows 10. Not that I care to have it at the moment you can read about it at the Windows 10 forum in my post, also known as the the Saga of Ineuw. I am sure that Windows 10 SP1 is being assembled as we "speak." :-) — Ineuw talk 22:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Just in case there is anybody out there reading this as slow on the uptake as clearly I am: Ineuw suggested the answer to this last part many hours ago. The toolbar permutations which "work" for Firefox are now "Show edit toolbar" (ON), "Enable enhanced editing toolbar" (OFF) and "Enable wizards for inserting links..." (OFF), which restores the legacy bars.

Hello 2006, I remember you. Good times. AuFCL (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Besides the missing OCR button, the special characters window is now between the header and the edit window for me. I don't use many of the gadgets. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Re: AuCFL: Tried that (I'm using Firefox), but having the OCR button means I lose the table of special characters to insert, which is an important part of the texts I'm editing. For now, I guess that means that I have to change my preferences any time I need the OCR. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is limping not sprinting. I simply meant that now I can (perhaps torturously) reach all of the utilities formerly available two days ago. I have relied (too long?) upon external utilities to provide offbeat character support so perhaps feel the sacrifice of the special chars menu less than EncycloPetey. Does CharInsert suffice for your purposes? AuFCL (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, for now. Our Ancient Greek charinsert has always been limited, so I use a separate Wiktionary editing window for that. I primarily need charinsert for macrons, ligatures, and a few other special characters that I can't create with simple keyboard combinations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
@Ineuw: The only thing I can try while researching the latest on these RL changes is eliminating the previous dependency calls per Gadget to see if that changes anything. The OCR button gadget has been modified... any changes Suggestions? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: it looks like that resulting change in load order has definitely screwed something up. How to isolate that further, I'm still struggling with.

Note: I'm able to reproduce the loss of just the proofreading tools advanced menu on Page: namespace pages that are yet to be created opposed to pages that exist & that I've visited. Hitting Edit again after that initial "load", loads everything as expected (OCR works as well). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't reproduce your method in Firefox But it's working in IE 11. Please don't struggle with it - the solution will be found. In the meanwhile I have no problem using the legacy toolbars.— Ineuw talk 02:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I was too optimistic, it's missig there as well.— Ineuw talk 02:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If the proofread tools are missing from the new toolbar AND the button is missing, then it will need to be fixed via phabricator request, and we will need to add Krinkle to the card. All those buttons, and the code to integrate the Proofread tools into the toolbar sit in ProofreadPage. I will see if I can find someone who can help me find the code, however, that is not really my knowledge base. I stick with the old toolbar, as apart from being a dinosaur, it just works better for me. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not adding anything of substance, just chiming in that my toolbar is missing as well (along with my emdash, br, etc. buttons that are listed on my common.js page). Not sure what I personally need to do, or if we are just waiting. I skimmed through the above information, but understand little of it, and I am hesitant to play around with my preferences... I use Chrome. Similar issue in IE. Please advise. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: The problem is not browser based.

  1. I recommend that you save a screen print of every tab of your Preferences, plus a screen print of a page opened in edit mode so we can see what you see. These screen prints would be used to revert to your original settings so that you can feel free to change anything you want.
  2. Please upload the screen prints of the Editing and Gadgets tabs to help asses the problems. (As far as I know), Administrators cannot see the settings of the Preferences. They can only access the CSS and javascript files. — Ineuw talk 22:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded a screen shot here... No zoom in/out option or customized buttons bar. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
You and I have/had the identical issue. I say "had" because of changes by GO3, but not the changes we need. We are still missing This is my current toolbar It's identical to yours the only addition is the OCR button because I have this selected in gadgets. — Ineuw talk 17:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It's working, the prodigal toolbar has returned!!! I wrote the previous post before checking or doing any editing. Thank you our prince, GO3.
Only change for me is that the [undesired] toolbar (see) is now below the header instead of above it. Still no zoom in/out, and no customized buttons. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: My issue seems to be browser related, as IE now has the desired toolbars & customized buttons, but not so for Chrome... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
FURTHER UPDATE: It is apparently hit and miss in IE. Sometimes I have the desired toolbar (see here), and sometimes I have the undesired toolbar... It changes from page to page... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Sorry for missing your post about IE and Chrome. Using Chrome, I copied your common.js and pasted it into my alternate (IneuwPublic) account's common.js to test it and the missing toolbar is there.IneuwPublic (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Thanks... The desired toolbar appears once every blue moon now (Chrome), but the undesired toolbar remains steadfast. I tried playing around with my preferences, but to no avail. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Instructions by User:Billinghurst[edit]

The feedback from the Phabricator ticket is that when editing from non-login space that the toolbar with Proofread tools is present. This would therefore indicate that we have an interaction issue with another setting. I have tested from non-logged in space for IE11, Chrome and Firefox (lastest versions) and can confirm that the toolbar is indeed showing with "Proofread Tools". Thus we know that the default of site common.js and mandated gadgets is a functional situation, so that is a good start.

Those who are impacted are going to need to

  • turn off their gadgets (first recording which they use) and see if the problem resolves itself
    • if yes, turn your gadgets back on one at a time and retest after each until you find your point of failure

If unresolved, then you will need to

  • neuter your common.js and/or global.js (at meta if used) and see whether the problem goes away
    • if yes, turn back on your gadgets and test again. If it works, then re-enable your scripts in your common.js/global.js one at a time.

Please report back your findings. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

In the complete absence of any kind of feedback in over 24-hours is it safe to assume all issues have been at least "patched-up" sufficient for everybody's immediate needs if not actual ongoing satisfaction?

Apart from the changed module load order and consequent (manageable) impact on java-scripting I have no outstanding issues. Do we have consensus to close this issue? AuFCL (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

The more I read up on this RL change and the subsequent actions needed (or taken?), the more I get the feeling some of my approach to site wide & gadget .js/.css organization over the months is going to behind this week's latest problems. If that winds up to be the case, then I'm truly, truly sorry for that. Let me try to document those steps and the reasoning behind them in hopes someone (@Krinkle:) can made sense of our current state and put us on the right path post RL change(s).

Originally, we not only had a ridiculous amount of scripting and .css definitions in our primary site-wide MediaWiki files to begin with but also called a number of stand-alone .js/.css files within those primary MediaWiki files called unnecessarily in addition to calls to various sub-scripts on top of any User: selected gadgets being called -- some of which eventually became default loaded per concensus, etc..

A simple depiction of the key files mentioned minus any Gadgets basically went like this...

Over several months with help of other folks, I began to consolidate and/or eliminate as much scripting calls as I could -- creating optional Gadgets whenever possible -- and tried much the same for the .css class definitions. The rationale behind doing this can be found in several places, most importantly: Wikipedia. The premise to keep the MediaWiki site-wide files "lean" goes like this....

 /**
 * Keep code in MediaWiki:Common.js to a minimum as it is unconditionally
 * loaded for all users on every wiki page. If possible create a gadget that is
 * enabled by default instead of adding it here (since gadgets are fully
 * optimized ResourceLoader modules with possibility to add dependencies etc.)
 *
 * Since Common.js isn't a gadget, there is no place to declare its
 * dependencies, so we have to lazy load them with mw.loader.using on demand and
 * then execute the rest in the callback. In most cases these dependencies will
 * be loaded (or loading) already and the callback will not be delayed. In case a
 * dependency hasn't arrived yet it'll make sure those are loaded before this.
 */

The result of that effort as it stands today can be depicted basically like this....

The predominant change in order to move towards the previously cited rationale & approach is that the bulk of the scripting and class definitions now reside in the default-enabled Site gadget files, MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js & MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css. And by no means is the current state the desired final approach; its been a work in progress as time allowed over several months.

Obviously, now with the recent change to Gadgets and ResourceLoader, either the existing rationale or my attempts (or both) are no longer in harmony -- if they ever were. In my view, we need someone like Krinkle (or maybe the collective minds of Wikitech-l?) to take the time and attention needed to come in here and straighten all this out -- one way or the other. My gut tells me THAT will resolve the reported loss of one thing or another post-RL change(s). Again, if I'm right about my actions exacerbating problems for other, I apologize and take full responsibility. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've made a few minor changes in addition to yours that hopefully make things work a bit more like you intended. I'm happy to provide further guidance but that probably works better for a more specific need or question. Perhaps bring it up on Wikitech-l or on IRC so we I can help you move forward with any unresolved issues. Krinkle (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Bots are not capable of proofreading[edit]

I am comfortable with a bot formatting and undertaking some standardised text changes, however, I am not comfortable with the bot SHSPbot (talkcontribs) setting works to proofread. The act of proofreading is a human act where the text is visually checked against the image, and I don't see that a bot is capable of doing that work. I am surprised that this has been allowed to occur and that the community in its patrolling has not made some comment about this. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We might set all texts to proofread: such a solution would be a quicker and easier one, don't you think so? :-) (Don't take my words seriously, I see the proofreading activity as a human affair, not in the capacities of a bot.) --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite its name is SHSPbot genuinely a bot? It does not appear in this list (not that I am sure that that is definitive.) Would it not be legitimate for Dictioneer to simply be using this as an alternate account? (I ask for information; not to express a position.) AuFCL (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion was held here: Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-07#BOT_approval_requestsMpaa (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I am just reading the bot user page. I have asked that question at the talk page and am awaiting a response. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
If the bot is used only to quickly save pages from a carefully scrutinised off-line file, I do not see a problem. No difference for me in accuracy whether you work directly in WS or in a text editor + djvu viewer side-by-side off-line. I think it is a matter of preference regarding your tools. Another story is an automated program that you launch and forget.— Mpaa (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree: as long as the bot is a tool and not a decision-maker, it's ok for me. --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry bilinghurst and others, I've been away on vacation. I believe the confusion is caused by what is probably my inadvertent violation of another policy -- I've been logging on as SHSPbot manually and proofing the pages it's uploaded. This seemed at the time a cleaner way to collect statistics on the bot's performance. However, if as I suspect, this is a big-time violation of the rules, I will cease the activity immediately. My apologies for creating an unnecessary discussion. I will return to this page in my human entity of Dictioneer to finish commenting. SHSPbot (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Following up on my previous post, I have left my bot persona and am back as me. I presume I broke a rule/policy by editing pages while logged on in my bot persona: while it seemed like a good idea at the time, I think I get why this is a bad idea and plead ignorance as my only defense (I'd assume there was some flag set when uploading using the pywiki software and that it was harmless to be a human using a bot account. Since I apparently fooled billinghurst I assume that it's not possible to tell the difference. My intent was simply to collect productivity statistics for the bot work + manual corrections and proofreading under the same account and not to engage in any subterfuge or other misbehavior. From now on, all manual edits will be done under my dictioneer persona. If there is anything else I should do or any administrative process I face, I am available as needed. Again, mea culpa. Dictioneer (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that Dictioneer's intentions were and remain honourable. We all make mistakes, well, many of us. So give him the benefit of doubt. He has nothing to gain by doing as he did. He could just let that project sit forever unproofed and unvalidated. He came from WP with good intentions and I have worked with him in private and in the open. He is smart but doesn't know all of the rules yet but who does? Benefit of the doubt is one of those important rules and a smart one on Wikisource. —Maury (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cross-wiki Hoax[edit]

Black Knight and Author:Anirban Sengupta are continuations of a cross-wiki hoax by blocked user at English Wikipedia with many sockpuppets. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anirban Sen Gupta and w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Surjendranil. The work has been added by the author himself, without license and proper publication data. Proof that the user account belongs to the author: This account is listed in the sockpuppet list, the list also has the author's name; the Commons list contains more user names same as the author's in English as well as Bengali scripts. Hrishikes (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks for the notification. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

splitting confirmations[edit]

Jusjih has proposed "splitting the administrator and bureaucrat confirmations".[14] I would like to invite the community to form a view on this. Hesperian 04:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

These annual events are meant to reflect that we are confirming the continued existence of the person and that they maintain rights. Any contributor is able to ask that any confirmation be split at the time of confirmation of any right, and I would think that the community would agree to that request if it came. In lieu of someone requesting the separation of right confirmation, I am comfortable with them remaining combined. Noting that I have other advanced rights so would consider myself affected by such a process. For 'crat rights with the lack of rename function, it is only the addition of rights, so is hardly a greatly abusable right. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)