Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

← Community page

Administrators' noticeboard

Archives (current) →

• sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons gallery, quotes, course, taxonomy, Wikidata item.

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.
• Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived

Report abuse of editing privileges:

Admin noticeboard | Open proxies

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 7 days.Template:Autoarchive resolved section/parameter timecompare set to 'resolved'

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 3,542,603
No. of articles = 884,773
No. of files = 19,354
No. of edits = 11,522,381

---

No. of pages in Main = 519,591
No. of pages in Page: = 2,588,746
No. validated in Page: = 502,607
No. proofread in Page: = 850,799
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,012,360
No. problematic in Page: = 37,261
No. of validated works = 5,233
No. of proofread only works = 3,902
No. of pages in Main⁠
with transclusions = 311,106
% transcluded pages in Main = 59.88
Σ pages in Main⁠

---

No. of users = 3,000,557
No. of active users = 410
No. of group:autopatrolled = 476
No. in group:sysop = 24
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 16

Statistics
User preference statistics
Special:Statistics

Checkuser requests

• Wikisource:checkuser policy
• At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to be undertaken by stewards
  • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
  • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
  • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests

• To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Renewal of Interface Admin rights

My Interface Admin bit is about to expire (it was a 6 month thing) and I'm not done breaking things! Could it please be renewed? IIRC, this needs a 'crat to do. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended for a further six months. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Thank you! Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Beeswaxcandle, @BD2412: Note that the intent was that renewal of Inductiveload's Interface Admin rights would be rolled into their annual confirmation, like is the practice with other additional/supplementary permissions. See the original discussion. --Xover (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests

Requesting page protection for {{left sidenote}} and {{right sidenote}}

Given what happened (see above) I am of the view that as highly visible and widely used templates, these along with their respective style-sheets should be protected from general editing, with someone appropriate identifying a STABLE version and then protecting that version. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Other

Interface administrators

Hi. Please see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Unisfu5m161hs4zl. I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome.  Comment As far as I am concerned I would trust any admin who feels skilled and confident enough to tackle such edits.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I can handle the technical aspects of it. However, it can take me a while to get around to tasks that take longer than a few minutes, so I don't want to create a false expectation of being able to handle time sensitive matters on my own. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should decide how to address the fact that EnWS has no m:interface administrators. I see basically the following options. Please add/amend as you feel appropriate.

Option A - Assign right on demand when needed

Option B - Assign right permanently to willing Admins, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

As I said above, I am for the simplest one.— Mpaa (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Option C - Assign right permanently to selected Admins, after approval process, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

Option C sounds like you're being volunteered (based on the lack of the word 'willing'). ;) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Option D - assign the rights to all the admins, who have already been vetted for community approval, and then whoever has the ability and desire can make use of it as they will and as needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Option D would make the most sense for us. For anyone to get themselves to the point that we trust them with the admin tools just so that they can mess around in the interface, they would be playing a very long game. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Beeswaxcandle, Option D, although I would also be fine with the right only going to admins who express an interest. BD2412 T 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It is so rare I disagree with Beeswaxcandle but this must be one of those times. The whole point of this change is to prevent the ignorant from accidentally screwing up - insulting as the implications undoubtedly are! As such under the new regime trust is no longer enough; perhaps somebody ought to draw up some kind of eligibility examination…? 114.73.248.245 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and accidental changes are easily reversed. If we had more users it would be more of a problem, but as it stands this kind of distinction is more cumbersome than helpful in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As much as I like the idea of making all existing admin interface admin, IA were separated from regular adminship specifically to reduce attack surface(from hackers), and it was pretty dangerous if the access fell into the wrong hand, I'd rather propose having existing admin request right from bureaucrat and could be granted at the bureaucrat's discretion, and should be automatically removed if no action after two month.Viztor (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment we discussed it when the rights were split, and it was agreed that it could be assigned on a needs basis. That has been done at least once for me with the temporary assignation of the IA rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Note that WMF Legal requires 2FA to be enabled for users who are to be assigned this right, so bureaucrats will have to verify this before doing so. MediaWiki's 2FA implementation is also sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the 2FA implementation? I haven't had any issues with it at all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry, I should have been more clear. I am going on hearsay, mostly from admins on enwp (a crotchety bunch if ever there was one), and my own assessment of the documentation at meta. The main complaints are that the implementation in general is a little bit primitive (as is to be expected since WMF rolled their own instead of federating with one of the big providers), and that there is no way to regain access to your account if something goes wrong with the 2FA stuff (if your phone is stolen etc.) unless you happen to know one of the developers personally. None of these are in themselves showstoppers, and many people are using it entirely without issue. The phrasing sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration was not intended to discourage use, but merely to suggest that it is worthwhile actually giving it a little thought before requesting it be turned on. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, gotcha. As it happens, Wikimedia 2FA does include emergency access codes for use when your phone is unavailable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal requirements related to 2FA

Picking up this again…

I finally got so annoyed by our inability to fix even simple stuff stuff that requires Interface Admin permissions that I hopped over to meta to figure out what the actual requirements are (versus the should stuff). As it turns out, the 2FA stuff is (surprise surprise) as half-baked as most such Papal bulls from the WMF: 2FA is required for intadmin, but there is no way for bureaucrats to actually check whether an account has that enabled. The result of this is that even on enwp (where they take this stuff really seriously) they do not actually try to verify that 2FA is enabled before they hand the permission out: they check that the user is in the right group so that they can turn on 2FA, remind the person in question of the requirement, but otherwise take it on faith (trust). There's a request in for the technical capability to verify 2FA (and I think Danny is even working on it), but it seems mostly everyone's waiting for 2FA to be enforced by the software.

Meanwhile, anyone with existing advanced permissions (i.e. +sysop) have the capability to enable 2FA, and anyone with a particular reason (e.g. that they need it to get Interface Administrator permission) can apply to be a "2FA Tester" and thus gain the ability to turn it on.

The net result is that our bureaucrats (ping Hesperian and Mpaa) can assign this permission so long as we somehow somewhere make at least a token effort to make sure those getting the bit have 2FA enabled. Whether that's an addition to, or footnote on, Wikisource:Adminship, or the bureaucrats asking/reminding the user when it comes up, or… whatever… I have no particular opinion on. Since the previous community discussions have been actively adverse to regulating this stuff in detail, and absent objections, I think "Whatever Hesperian and Mpaa agree on" is a reasonable enough summary of consensus.

I still think we should have an actual policy for Interface Administrators (or section on it in Wikisource:Adminship) and some facility for permanently assigning the permission (ala. +sysop; but intadmin tasks are not one-and-done like +sysop tasks, they often require iterative changes over time and need to fit into a overall architecture), but so long as there is no appetite for that, something that we can point to and say "That's how we handle the 2FA requirement" if the WMF should ever come asking. --Xover (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Judicious cleaning required from Special:UnusedFiles

I was just poking my head into Special:UnusedFiles. There are a significant number of images that utilise {{raw page scan}} that should be checked and if truly unused, we can delete as the file has been transwiki'd to Commons. And I note that always physically check their usage as I have previously seen that the NOT USED assessment is not always accurate.

Checking and deleting process:

• Use the Page:… link
• At Page:… check that there is a Commons loaded image in place (and no use of template:raw image)
• grab the new filename
• click back to the local image, delete the image, noting "File transwiki'd" and paste in the new filename (preferred not mandatory)

If admins could do 10 to 20 a session, we should get through them in a month or so. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment TIP: when doing the image check you can even take the time to validate proofread page with the image (very often sittin gin proofread status). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Considering the list is maxed out at 5k, so there's no telling how many more of them there are (we have over 20k files tagged as raw page scans, possibly more that are untagged), it's highly unlikely we'll get through that in a month. But it's certainly something we need to start chipping away at.

And we should possibly even start considering more drastic measures, like periodically bot-deleting anything in Category:Raw page scans for missing images that isn't used anywhere (including inbound links). The manual processing is tedious and time-consuming, and provides very little additional value compared to an automated approach (linking to the replacement image in the deletion log, mostly, and that has marginal value at best). We'd need to check closely whether the category contains files that could be caught as false positives in such a run, but barring such pitfalls automation may be both the best option and the only realistic way to ever clear out this backlog (we have plenty of other image-related backlogs where human attention is necessary).

Oh, PS, DannyS712 has a neat user script at User:DannyS712/Change status.js that makes cases such as this a lot quicker. I'm not sure they consider it ready for prime-time (I don't think it's been advertised anywhere), so caveat emptor, but I've been using it a good bit today and seen no problems. To use, add importScript('User:DannyS712/Change status.js'); to your common.js. --Xover (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to use the script, it adds a link to the function (next to the "move" function) that will, if the page is "not proofread" or "problematic", mark it as "proofread". If it is already "proofread", and the user can mark it as validated, it marks it as validated instead. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I agree with @Xover: that this kind of tasks should be automated.Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment At this point I would think that the task is to start to chip away. I don't see that there is urgency in cleaning this space, so as long as we start. So what if it takes three months, heck I have works that I dip in and out of for years. As I said I have seen multiple issues of the tool being wrong in the past, if we can demonstrate that this is no longer the issue, then maybe we can look to bot removal. I though the admin review, and process of validating was beneficial.

P.S. Those quiescent admins, and those who find it hard to identify tasks to undertake are given a gift here! — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Having done about a hundred of these by hand… I'd say the realistic best case sustained rate here is something like 5 admins doing 5 files per day for 5 days a week. That's an aggregate rate of about 500 per month. If the number is 5k that means 10 months to get through it. If the number is 20k that's 40 months, or just shy of 3.5 years. I don't have sufficient data for an accurate estimate of net time, but assuming a range of 30-60 seconds per file, at 5k files that's an aggregate ~40–80 net admin-hours expended. At 20k files that's ~160–320 net admin hours. Assuming an 8 hour work day, that's one dedicated admin working flat out only on this for between one week (5k/30s) and 2 months (20k/60s). With no lunch break, by the way. That's a pretty high cost.

On the upside we have tagging the logs for deleted files with a link to the replacement images. But that only matters if you're actually looking at the deleted file, and for these raw page scans that is essentially never going to happen. Having a human in the loop also helps guard against Mediawiki bugs in categorising etc., but while, yes, that does happen, it's been years since I've run into that kind of bug anywhere that would matter here. What usually happens is that counts and references fail to update properly when pages are deleted, so you get categories saying they have members, but in reality the relevant items have already been deleted; and these eventually get cleared out by periodic maintenance tasks.

In other words, doing this manually is expensive and with a significant opportunity cost, and without a concomitant value. Automating it obviously carries risks (automatically deleting up to 5-20k files should never be done lightly). But with appropriate checks—for example, all files listed on Special:UnusedFiles who are also in category Raw page scans and who have no incoming links in WhatLinksHere—manual spot checks, and going in batches… the risk should be eminently manageable. --Xover (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I can work out shortly a script that can scan category Raw page scans and checks for the conditions for deletion (and in case deletes). If you are OK to test small batches, let me know.Mpaa (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Can you have it run up a list of files and dump it in a sandbox somewhere so we can spot check the logic? Maybe a hundred or so files that the script thinks should be deleted, and, if relevant, the ones it thinks shouldn't be. Better to find any holes in the logic before we start deleting stuff. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Here: res sandbox.Mpaa (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Excellent! I've spot-checked pages from most of the works represented in that list and found none incorrect. I'd have no objection to running that (in batches so it can be checked; there're bound to be some pathological edge-case out there somewhere). --Xover (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I have done a small test batch of 45 pages as Mpaa.Mpaa (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Ok, I've spot-checked 2–3 files from each work in those 45, and find no real problems. The only issue I see is that the deletion log for File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-453.png links to c:File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu instead of c:File:A Book of the West - ALMS HOUSES, S GERMANS.png; and ditto for File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-223.png that points to c:File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu instead of c:File:A Book of the West - LAKEHEAD, KISTVAEN.png. --Xover (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks, I fixed it, I ran another ~40 pages.Mpaa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can set up a scrolling gallery that does nothing but compare our page image side-by-side with the comparable Commons file. An editor could scroll through and eyeball any differences fairly quickly. BD2412 T 22:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Poking at this again…

I found no problems with Mpaa's test bot run, and we still have potentially ~20k files sitting there that it would be a waste of admin resources to process manually. Can we pull the trigger on a mass delete of these? If not, what are the concerns? --Xover (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I ran about 15 pages to check that everything is still OK. Mpaa (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for files unacceptable on Commons, especially if still copyright-restricted at home.--Jusjih (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The images from The Coronado expedition, 1540-1542, uploaded by Hesperian in 2013 already exist on the commons and are linked to Index:The Coronado expedition, 1540-1542.djvu— Ineuw (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Request move

Hello. Could you please move "Siamese Interim Administrative Charter Act, Buddhist Era 2475 (1932)" to "Translation:Act on Interim Charter for Public Administration of Siam, 2475 Buddhist Era" and change its namespace from "main" to "translation"? Thank you so much. --KhaoNiaoMaMuang (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done The above has been moved. Wikidata item needs to be moved. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kathleen.wright5: The WD items should be updated when you do the moves, or very quickly afterwards. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in working on this particular backlog, there are about 80+ works (mostly Thai legal documents) that need to be moved from Mainspace to Translation space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If someone can map out the required conversions from {{header}} to {{translation header}} then I can run through them. Just too busy to do all the thinking of the conversions. Would be wanting indications of which lines add/remove/change, to make the bot tasking easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Most of them are obvious - title=<title>, author=<author>, etc. The interwiki link [[th:<pagetitle>]] gives you the values for language=th and original=<pagetitle>. If shortcut and/or year are omitted, they need to be added as blank parameters. Finally, any instance of override_translator = [[Wikisource:Translations|Wikisource]] needs to be removed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Need some sort of template for constitutions and other iterative works

It is my opinion that we need to template tag those government works that have histories of versions as well-meaning editors keep updating existing versions rather than adding completely new versions. And it would be fair to say that we somewhat bury the fact that our documents are static versions rather than dynamic. I think that we should develop an elegant template that we can apply to these types of iterative works that clearly says that the presented work is a static version, and clearly states which static version. Any takers? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• The Constitution of India page, along with its subpages, as it stands now, is a dynamic document, not static. The whole piece is an updated document, done by Wikisource editors. Updated published versions, published by the Government of India, are not enactments in the updated form, therefore have Govt copyright for 60 years. The version here is Wikisource creation. Accordingly, this should not be declared as a static version by placing a template overhead. Instead, deletion may be considered, as out-of-scope. Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I would think that we may be better to generate a static version of India's constitution, at least one from sometime and timestamp it. How we go about other version is a different issue, and the matter in itself is one worthy of debate for {{PD-GovEdict}}. Other than that, how did we seemingly knowingly get caught in hosting a dynamic document and not set this straight earlier? Such is outside of the principles of this place, let alone the policy, and we should be holding tight to our principles. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The original hand-written version is present here: The Constitution of India (Original Calligraphed and Illuminated Version). Original printed version may be proofread from Index:The Constitution of India 1949 (Gazette Notification Version).djvu. Amendments may be proofread from Index:Amendments to the Constitution of India.pdf. As for the EdictGov debate, it is ongoing at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Index:Constitution of India, As on 09 September 2020.pdf, where you are welcome to participate with your POV. As for how the dynamic version is being hosted; it has been present from before my time here, so you would be better placed for shedding light on how it got hosted. Hrishikes (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Restore deleted items so I can finish transcriptions

Please look at Portal:Susannah_Lattin, the red links were entries that were deleted before I could finish transcription or before I could migrate the text from Commons. Could they be restored so I can finish the project? --RAN (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It is imo possible to restore it, but I had a look e. g. at The Long Island Mystery which is just a so short extract of the text that I am not really sure why it would be useful. Can just the page be simply founded again, only this time with the full text? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The full text already exists for all these entries, they were deleted as I was creating them. I have the corrected text or the raw OCR at Wikimedia Commons and at Familypedia, where they were in 2015 when their counterpart here was deleted. I won't be be able to match them up to their image and text at Commons until I see the full article titles and what text was already there. The person deleting them, should have just asked me if I had the text to complete them. I think it was part of a larger dispute over whether ordinary people can get a portal or a category to tie them together as a subject of a group of articles. If you restore them, I can finish what I started. --RAN (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have restored Brooklyn Eagle/1868/The Long Island Mystery. It's the one with content. Most of the others are a header only with a file link. The one from the New York Herald was never created. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Please don't create these unfinished in main namespace. If you want to undertake a progressive transcription like that, then create it in your user space in a sandbox. [This is not the first time this has been mentioned and you have a string of unfinished transcriptions sitting in Special:PrefixIndex/user:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_).] Of course the best practice when you have a scan of the text is to utilise the Index:/Page: namespace like everyone else is encouraged to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

And to your sniping assertion, I would point you to your user talk page where there is still the very specific and clear text about why they were deleted. And yes, it was part of your history of problematic editing at that time. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

When you refer to my comments as "sniping" it is another indicator there is a personal problem, hence the request for an interaction ban. --RAN (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• And as I said then, and is still true today. I have the transcriptions waiting to be cut and pasted, except you delete faster than I can finish the work. We also have categories for entries called Category:25% for entries that are 25% transcribed or less. We even have a Category:0%. If you asked me if I had the text, rather than delete things I am working on, everyone would be happier. --RAN (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Comment To any admin restoring progressive transcriptions, I would ask that if you restore them to main namespace that they are then moved to user namespace for their completion. Easy for them to be moved back to main ns upon completion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban

• Can I suggest an interaction ban between myself and Billinghurst. If my entries need patrolling, it should be done by someone else that has no past history between us. Billinghurst has a record of enforcing his personal preferences selectively on my entries. As I reported earlier he was imposing rules he wrote under THIS IS A DRAFT!!! as !Wikilaw and instead of acknowledging them as draft rules, his response was to remove the THIS IS A DRAFT!!! title. There are a half-dozen ways that newspaper entries are being formatted, and there seems to be no rush to harmonize them, but Billinghurst is in a rush to change my entries, remove all wikilinks, delete entries I am transcribing, and most recently moving a valid entry out of mainspace. He is enforcing subjective rules selectively against me. I get the feeling that there is some personal animus involved and I am being put through a punitive audit for challenging him on the naming of an author entry recently. --RAN (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said on your user page. Please only add things that fit the criteria of Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. At this time you are the only one bringing in family letters that have no notability, or to people of no discernible notability. As you yourself said you have transcribed some things at Ancestry, and that seems the appropriate place for items of a general genealogical and family history nature. Plus the works were not deleted, they were moved to your user space. I also asked for your wikilinks to comply to Wikisource:Wikilinks. Every time that this has happened, I have explained to you how it is out of scope.

Complaining here that I am supposedly enforcing my point of view when you have not demonstrated that the works are in scope, or that the linking is not out of scope is problematic. Stop complaining about me and demonstrate that the works are notable for inclusion here, and that the wikilinks that you did comply with our guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is the problem, you are rigorously enforcing fuzzy subjective policy as if it is strict objective !Wikilaw and focusing on my entries, which feels like harassment. The more I complain, the more you focus on my entries. There are lots of other people around who do not have the long history of animus that appears to be here. Fuzzy subjective rules are being weaponized against someone you have a beef with, and that is wrong. It has gotten to the point where I fear asking a question at the Village Pump because you may unilaterally decide to delete something, or move something that I asked about. No contributor should be put in that situation. Having access to admin tools lets you be the executioner, but you are also allowing yourself to be the judge and jury too. The community should be deciding what is notable, and not notable, not you based on your personal preferences. The !Wikilaw you cite for saying my entry is non-notable reads as follows: "Works created before 1926: Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1926 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable." That seems pretty straightforward to me, so the only reason I can see for saying it is not eligible for Wikisource, is the personal beef between us, hence the proposed interaction ban. When you read that rule, all you see is the word "most", which lets you delete what you personally do not like. --RAN (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to m:Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/2021 consultations/Discussion

If this is incorrectly placed, please move to a more appropriate location for general administrator attention.

I am interested in hearing the input of Wikisource administrators and other users about the application of the Universal Code of Conduct, especially from the perspective of interactions on Wikisource here, or at the linked page. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Comment There is a range of consultations taking place around enforcement per m:Universal Code of Conduct enforcement roundtable discussions. I am meant to be at the meeting for Stewards and global sysops, though somewhat depends on the time held. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrol request

Please give User:Richard Nevell autopatrolled status; he's a Wikimedian in long-term good standing, and I can vouch for him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Why? What's he need it for? Xover (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You can find an explanation of why Autpatrolled is used at Wikisource:Autopatrolled. That's the reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Denied. Being in "good standing" with Wikimedia is not the sole criterion for autopatrolled. The user should also demonstrate familiarity with Wikisource policy and with Wikisource's style guide, and should have made sufficient good edits that it is more efficient to have the editor's contributions autopatrolled. Richard Nevell made five edits in 2021, and only about 60 edits in total on Wikisource, most of them on 15 October 2020. There is insufficient demonstration that he understands Wikisource policy or our Style Guide, and thus he does not at this time meet the criteria as described at Wikisource:Autopatrolled. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, we have long used AP a little differently than other wikis, our usage has not been about trust, and about compliance to our style guide. The other way that we set up AP differently is that we give the ability to patrol to all accounts, so anyone can patrol edits. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough to me, and I still feel I'm learning about the style guide. Thank you Andy for suggesting it, and thank you EncycloPetey and Billinghurst for the explanation. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

And for the record I trust Richard Nevell implicitly too. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Pages

I had been finishing an index that was started and idle for some five years, Index:Chesterton_-_Eugenics_and_Other_Evils_(Cassell,_1922).djvu. I was five minutes away from completing this when account @Hilohello: saved out remaining pages as 'not proofread' 30 seconds ahead of me. They have ignored my request for an explanation, because I assume it is pretty obviously trolling. I am requesting that a non-billinghurst admin delete their contributions to that index. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: While someone stepping on your toes is obviously never too fun, what actual problem does the existence of the pages create?

@Hilohello: When a fellow contributor raises an issue with you on your user talk page (or a different page, for that matter) you need to respond and participate constructively in resolving the disagreement. That is the only way a collaborative project like Wikisource can function. In this particular case I would like to hear what your reasoning was for swooping in on a text that Cygnis insignis was already working on, at the last minute, and for creating pages that were Not proofread. If you wanted to help out you could have Validated some of the existing pages instead of getting in their way, as I notice other contributors have previously requested of you without getting a response. Xover (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: ta for the quick reply. There are several problems with merely saving out a page, although there is a single advantage that may be seen as beneficial to the site. I regard these as secondary concerns, I had prepared to proofread the pages before the edit conflict was generated (and finish the excellent book I was reading). I have perhaps generated two side discussions to this incident, but think my immediate request is worth expediting. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize someone was working on it. (I am not very observant) Sorry! --Hilohello (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hilohello: We all make mistakes, and can miss things at times. But I am a little concerned that you somehow found your way to fill in the last 9 (of 200) pages of a text without noticing that it was actively being worked on, when you created your first page within 60 seconds of the previous page being saved. I am also rather concerned that you did not respond on your user talk page when the issue was brought up there, not until after the issue was also raised at the administrators noticeboard. And I am still wondering why you're creating pages as "Not proofread". I would appreciate it if you could address these concerns. --Xover (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Well, the editing of a page in the book which I had made reminded me the book existed, so I was clicked over and was like "Oh, hey, looks like it's almost done! I can 100% it right now, no problem!" As for why they were marked "not proofread" I was scolded once for saving new pages as "Proofread" so I figured it was Not Done. And I didn't respond immediately to Cygnis on my talk page because I didn't really understand what s/he was complaining about. Sorry! (also, I only recently figured out how to work the signature) --Hilohello (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hilohello: Thank you. In future: 1) if someone raises an issue with you on your user talk page you should engage with them to resolve that issue, including asking for clarification if you don't understand what the issue is they are raising; 2) you need to read up on Help:Page status and use the page status system properly (creating pages as "Not proofread" should be an exception, not the norm), or ask for help on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help if you need it; 3) I strongly advice you to pay attention to avoid stepping on others' ongoing work.

And in regards #3, while collaboration is in the nature of the project, the nature of proofreading is such that for a single text many contributors will strongly prefer to do all of it linearly and themselves. Stepping in to "help" will often not be particularly well received if it disrupts their flow. Either pick a different text to work on, work on something that will not get in their way (like Validating the pages they have Proofread), or ask what, if anything, they would like help with. For large multi-volume projects there's plenty to do for everyone, and easy and natural ways to divvy up the tasks, but for a ~200 page novel with a continuous narrative that's not the case. And in the big picture we have a functionally infinite amount of work to do, so stepping on each others' toes really shouldn't be necessary.

@Cygnis insignis: The pages created appear to have been created in good faith and with Proofread text (just mislabelled). Under those circumstances we don't really have grounds to delete them. You can of course further improve them to make them consistent with the rest of the work; and if their existence causes some actual technical hindrance to your work we can see if there's a way to resolve that as a separate issue. Xover (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I won't be doing the 'make consistent' on this 'novel'. @Xover: Have you used other accounts at this site? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: I don't think I understand what it is you are asking. Could you please clarify? Xover (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: I am unable to make it any clearer without make a patronising explication of the terms in this context. I suppose you might ask why am I asking, but I hoped to clarify something that is bothering me and carry on with the fun stuff. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Indeed, I was checking whether there might be some alternate interpretation of your question or, failing that, why you would ask that question. Given the general stance of every single Wikimedia project regarding using undisclosed multiple accounts it is a fairly loaded question to bring up without preamble. In other words, I am hoping you will clarify your intent so that I can respond appropriately. Xover (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• CYGNIS INSIGNIS: The problem you mention is real, and I have felt the trouble with it before. However, that is not what happened in this case. A comparison of the OCR and the pages as marked indicates that the pages should have been marked as proofread, rather than not proofread; it does not indicate that the pages were merely created in an OCR dump, as frequently happens. Your actions seem unnecessarily rude to the other editor involved, which reflects poorly on your mischaracterization of the situation. While it was without the standard practice of our community for another editor to proofread those pages instead of you, the pages were, nonetheless, proofread, and should not be deleted. Hilohello: In the future, mark those pages as “proofread,” rather than “not proofread.” There have been problems in the past and presently with users creating pages en masse as “not proofread” of indexes worked on by others, which, in most cases, disrupts the normal proofreading process. However, the pages you created were proofread, which is not so disruptive. You should generally avoid doing work which others were doing when such work is at a smaller scale, like it was here; but that is not stated policy, and it wasn’t clear (it seems) that you realized this; in the future, be somewhat more cautious. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

spammer should be blocked

User:Bajsdwer -Pete (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done They've been busy tonight. This is at least the third fourth account created to post this spam around. BD2412 T 04:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment further updated the title blacklist. This is manual spamming where they are adapting and power forcing it manually. Problem with title blacklist is that it rejects the edit, and lets them try again with no consequence, and the log for that is not available. I can write some filters that just warn and block if that is preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

special:abusefilter/43 and it gives a temporary goolies kick, so will need an admin intervention to completely stop it. Filter will take additional strings pretty easily. I see we have a lot more hits in the special:abuselog than edits, so the defences were pretty good. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Line 18 looks a bit scary for an auto-blocking filter. I'm pretty sure I've seen that in legitimate use in texts that would be in scope. Xover (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Happy to null it, do note line 3 which makes it pretty limiting. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd probably be fine as it was, but when the action is blocking I'm a little paranoid. Xover (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Adrena45 caught by the filter and blocked. Also worth noting that there is an xwiki element, with instances on enwiktionary of the same phone number. Pahunkat (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth upgrading blocks to indef on that user, as well as having a look at Onlineworkfor and Helpsupportus which have tripped filters and been given 2 hour (now expired) blocks. Pahunkat (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Accounts have already been blocked. I have made some minor mods to global title blacklist and to local abuse filters. Neither of these will be perfect, this is the style and pointlessness of the spam. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I have asked for CU check per m:special:diff/21510508. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing this spam stream in its entirety, seems to be page_title as the aim, with the body as incidental filler. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Need an Index: ns page move stopper

We need to toughen our defences against Index: and Page: ns moves. My suggestion is an abuse filter that selectively prohibits, or at the bare minimum warns people that it is not advisable. Before I do anything, would like to hear people's thoughts. Recovering from moves of this type is an issue, especially as it happens pretty quietly.

We don't have good automated rights that AF can leverage at this point in time, though there are numbers of measures that we can apply to restrict or pass actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but I'm not familiar enough with the goings-on to have a strong opinion how to do it. Can you describe the problem a little more specifically and/or one or two of the things you think should be done about it? Does this have to with IPs, new accounts, experienced users making poor decisions, intentional vandalism, ..? -Pete (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We do have Special:AbuseFilter/36, which is exactly for this. Perhaps add a warning actions to it and see if that stops people. Be very clear why they are being warned: "Please be extremely careful when moving pages in the Index or Page namespace if you are not an administrator. Non-administrators cannot suppress redirects, which means you cannot move other pages to where the moved page used to be. Moved index pages that have any existing sub-pages need to have the orphaned redirects deleted. It's much easier to ask an admin to do this (at WS:AN) directly rather than asking them to tidy up after a move with redirects left behind." Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. And I think a warning is the right level for this, at least to start. We have a relative frequent occurrence of people that create a new index after goofing the file name of the first, so the opposite problem is also relevant (it just has smaller consequences). Xover (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Index:A Study in Colour - Augusta Zelia Fraser.pdf

I have removed the first (Google) page from this PDF. The first page (which was blank) needs to be deleted, and the remaining pages (which have been created) need to be shifted appropriately. The OCR will also need to be adjusted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource:User access levels

I have thrown together this page to reflect what I understand as our current groups/access levels, and our current processes for gaining those access levels. I would appreciate someone/some people reviewing it for sanity and confirming that it reflects our practices.

It was starting as a page to reflect the change to criteria for autoconfirmed and the others just came with it. If the page is agreed as being correct and our practice, I will look to see that we have it suitably linked elsewhere. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If there is no comment, then I will look to further linking to the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I just (finally) had a look at it. It looks great, and I've sometimes wanted such an overview page myself so I'm definitely all for it. I took the liberty of expanding the text a bit for autoconfirmed and autopatrolled since those are the two most commonly encountered groups of relevance to new contributors. Feel free to revert if that doesn't fit with your conception of the page.

In any case, thanks for setting it up! Xover (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Watchlist-announcements

As administrators we need to make better use of our general means of announcements to our community, especially where we have either a significant proposal or have made a significant change to policy and templates, and want to capture all our users, and spasmodic users. We have all been pretty rubbish at that general comms in the past while and I think that we should at least think about what we want to better broadcast. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This is just the banner that shows up above the watchlist correct? I think that's reasonable. Is there anywhere else we should be remembering to post such content - mailing lists, social media, etc? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct, and it is persistent. As it is watchlist, only logged in users, and they can dismiss it once read. Wikisource-L, Twitter: @wikisource_en are possibles for some things. My reason for the watchlist is that it is our editors, and it is persistent, so very targeted, and low noise threshold. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I had utterly forgotten Wikisource-l existed! Twitter seems more like advertising/evangelism than operational notices (one fine day a New Texts bot can post there!). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 06:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Please don't post RfC or policy discussion notices to Twitter! Xover (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Amen! And especially since low participation is a much bigger problem in our policy/rfc type discussions than excessive numbers of comments or discussions. The better attended a given discussion is the stronger any resulting consensus will be, and, if we do it right, the better it will reflect the position of the community as a whole. Xover (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)