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 = 1,823,205
No. of articles = 739,328
No. of files = 15,394
No. of edits = 5,793,486

No. of pages in Main = 327,068
No. of pages in Page: = 1,191,072
No. validated in Page: = 224,781
No. proofread in Page: = 337,107
No. not proofread in Page: = 513,815
No. problematic in Page: = 21,676
No. of validated works = 1,843
No. of proofread only works = 1,028
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 114,739
% transcluded pages in Main = 35.08
Σ pages in Main 

No. of users = 2,487,734
No. of active users = 310
No. of group:autopatrolled = 410
No. in group:sysop = 35
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 27

Checkuser notification[edit]


Users Results 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)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]


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".[1] 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)
Yes. I did propose "splitting the administrator and bureaucrat confirmations" and I still consider this way better to avoid mixing up two privileged flags. As we lost one bureaucrat and only two are left, [2] I would consider keeping bureaucrats redundant with too few requests to become administrators and bots, while stewards could take over the work. As a former bureaucrat on four wikis, I consider that too few bureaucrats mean too powerful for them. If either or both Hesperian and Zhaladshar are unwilling to resign as bureaucrats, I would like to propose posting this message or the like on the top of their user pages to any stewards: Dear stewards, if no bureaucrat is active for 3 days, please feel free to perform bureaucrats' tasks. Thanks.--Jusjih (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Which of our 'crat tasks is that urgent or has needed intervention. I see no issue with having bureaucrats at this site to manage our annual processes, in fact I see that it is positive to the culture of this wiki. However, if a request to a 'crat sat open on this page for a week, then I would see that an admin could escalate to stewards (noting that critical items can always be requested of stewards). Noting that a request being added on this page would be an escalation of a request placed elsewhere on the wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, there are only two current admins who are also bureaucrats, Zhaladshar and Hesperian. I would generally support splitting the votes, but is this really a pressing issue at this point? BD2412 T 00:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Zhaladshar and Hesperian will be respectively confirmed in June and September in 2016, so it is not very pressing now, but once we generally support it, then do it next year.--Jusjih (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
To be blunt, having reviewed the track record of the recent confirmations of these editors, I see no likelihood of the community having the sort of divide that would make a split process relevant. I understand that your overall objective is to basically eliminate the bureaucrat position on wikis where it is concentrated on a small number of editors. I respect your concerns, but I disagree, since I believe that adequate safeguards exist to prevent any abuse. I therefore see no reason to create a rule requiring duplication of discussions, except where there is an actual issue of trust with the tools. BD2412 T 03:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Good points BD2412. The community has shown that maturity in previous years by separating the discussion for John Vandenberg's respective rights following a reasoned request, a couple of years ago. It is also a conversation that Hesperian and I have had (private correspondence c. his appointment) about skill sets, rights and our preferred position on the separation of the checkuser and bureaucrat roles. I understand Jusjih's concerns about 'crats in smaller communities where they can be seen to dominate a community, especially where the sole holder of the right. We are not small, we are mature, we do have a consensus approach, and he is not the sole holder. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Not supported—I don't support the proposal. Having two discussions routinely for each bureaucrat (or checkuser) is unnecessary. Either the community trusts the user with tools or we don't. We have chosen a few trusted users to have a couple of extra tools beyond those that an administrator has. We have demonstrated in the past that we will not put up with poor judgement in the use of tools and I can see no reason why the enWS community would not continue to do so. If the feeling is that two 'crats is not enough in proportion to the 36 administrators (and ca. 300 active users), then nomination and election of a third trusted user to the task is the appropriate solution in preference to taking the rôle away. It should be noted that in the ten years that the enWS has been in existence we have only had three users serve as bureaucrats—two of whom are current and the other has only just stopped. This demonstrates the stable nature of this community and that the trust we have placed in those users is entirely justified. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

wrong CSS?[edit]

This error (File:Error in the left column enwikisource.png left, below) is shown since several days in my watchlist. "Sister proyects" seems to have a wrong css part, the type size is bigger than the others in the left column. --Keysanger (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

For me with Firefox Reproducible in vector[[3]], does not occur in monobook[4], cologneblue[5] or modern[6].

On a side note I have been meaning to talk about its latent, ugly rendering where it appears big and bold at the top of the page, prior to rendering in the left column. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw... MediaWiki:InterProject.js is another script that went un-maintained by us for some time now and have long suspected the need for an overhaul of it -- preferably, into a user selectable gadget rather than part of the as it adds to the "length" of the already taxed side-bar screen space. I've tried to wrangle it into some better usability weeks ago but some recent change has caused not only the lack of .css adherence for some (e.g. I'm not see the large text under Edge) but probably the quirky delay in rendering too.

@Billinghurst:, User:Krinkle had recently offered to help "work" on stuff like this for us but I am unable to "freely" use things like mailing list(s) nor any good at IRC to take advantage of his offer. Maybe you can explain to him that I/we need to address/amend the many script related issues like this one through local forums (like Scriptorium) and/or User: talk pages for the best possible input (as I'm limited in what browser I can use for example) in order to achieve the most optimal solution(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I will see if I can find him in IRC, though he can be somewhat are elusive in that space. I generally find his meta user talk page to be the most successful. Do we need for this to be a local file, rather than a central file called interwiki by resourceloader? I know that I haven't been using the link, and not sure how many are. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
It sort of needs to be local since there are subtle differences between how commons and Wikisource handles their default layouts at this point. Personally, I find it useful for tracking changes in the MediaWiki, Template and Module namespaces on sister sites when it comes to key components that we also rely on. Plus it makes comparisons of changes easier for me to refine so things will "work" here on WS. But as I said before, I'd gladly accept a User: selectable gadgetized version but it uses some convoluted combination of things in the Template as well as MediaWiki namespace to work. I tried months ago to make heads or tales of it with not much luck I'm afraid. Again, needs outside intervention the way I see it (or complete removal if I happen to be the only idiot using it :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I tested by moving in the current Commons version, and that made no difference. I have returned the existing version. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Rename proposal for WS: ns page[edit]

At Wikisource talk:Possible copyright violations‎ I have started a discussion about renaming that set of pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: -- Now that the re-name is "done", can you please go through Special:DoubleRedirects and straighten out the related/redundant entries. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done thanks for the note. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Resurrected the bot patrolling that was JVbot[edit]

Ages ago, JVbot used to go through and patrol edits where we were comfortable that someone was able to work on/in one work/namespace/..., though we were not quite ready to give someone the full patrolled right of autopatrolled. As discussed ages ago, it was my wish for User:Wikisource-bot to assume that task for the community as JV was no longer that active within our community (and was harder to bug to get the job running when it failed). I have finally sorted through the issues that existed and have it running successfully with a couple of trials.

The bot works on the use of a patrol whitelist which was/is freely editable by members of the community, in that a user can be set up to have a path of files, set by use of Special:PrefixIndex and its manipulable paths. So only people who have been added to the list, with an acceptable path will be patrolled by the bot, anyone else is bypassed.

I have not set it to run continually, and here to put this back before the community before switches are thrown. Please provide any thoughts/feedback. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The logs are Special:Log/patrolbillinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There is no negative comment about the patrolling, so, over the weekend, I will set this to run on a continual basis. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser - some questions[edit]

Is there anyone here who uses AWB on Wikisource? Do I need additional permission, in addition to my WP signup? The most important question is how to hook into WS. Any help/info given is much appreciated because I couldn't find anything in the manual that would help. — Ineuw talk 01:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

BD2412 is a heavy AWB user here on Wikisource. Hesperian 02:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can use AWB on Wikipedia, all you need to do is boot it up, go to the [Options] tab on the top (fourth tab over), select [Preferences] (first tab on that dropdown list), then select [Site] on the menu that opens (second tab) and change the project from the default Wikipedia to Wikisource. Then click [OK] and you're in. You'll need to confirm your login information again once you start making edits. So far as I recall, I did not need to seek any additional permission to use AWB here.
  • There are many wikis that require such a permission, actuated by having an a page editable only by admins where the names of approved users must be added before they can use the tool. Frankly, it would be a good idea to have that here also, for the same reasons it exists elsewhere. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
    As Ineuw is an admin, he wouldn't be restricted. @Ineuw, generally the advice of take it slowly is a good approach (typical enWS). When you are starting to be bot-operation-focused, then the normal application processes for bots applies.

    Re a permissions page, we haven't had abuse issues in all these years, so we remain mindful and aware. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

    Fair enough. BD2412 T 15:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the replies. I have no intention to use any bot at this point. My reason of use is simple. I want to understand the tools that are available to a user, starting with myself. — Ineuw talk 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I echo Billinghurst's advice about just taking it slow at first; if I can utilize it there's no reason you shouldn't be able to. Also, I find it advantageous to enable the Flood Flag User: right prior to running AWB since the bit can -- for example -- bump up search / result-like tasks from 50 or 500 to 5000 (among other enhancements).
And I echo Ineuw that there is nothing to worry about. Just managed to log into Wikisource but every day I intend to take some time to study and understand the features. I didn't even reach baby steps yet, still in diapers. . . . and certainly don't intend to use any bots. I am very curious if it's usable for proofreading and that's all. — Ineuw talk 05:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
No images visible, so next to useless for proofreading against scans. Very useful if you move a page and need to disambiguate. Useful if you wish to undertake the same action repetitively , etc. AWB can behave in bot mode, or it can be used in full (re)view mode, and I do both. I use the latter situation where I have no interest in the image and can play with the text alone, especially as it can operate outside of the javascript restraints. It is also useful for building lists. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This has slowly dawned on me as I read the manual. Although it's claimed that is useful for proofreading, but not here, and now I understand why BD2412 uses it. I noticed that he is cleaning a lot of text pages of PSM. — Ineuw talk 05:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I find AWB useful for a number of tasks, of varying degrees of repetitiveness. For example, if a series of pages in a work have a common header, and this was not put in when the pages were initially created, I can use AWB to create the header template and the repeating portion of the text, and then add the non-repeating portion (e.g. page numbers) on the fly. BD2412 T 15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Special page listing for wanted templates broken?[edit]

Some recent change has expanded the Special:WantedTemplates' search results to now include all non-existing "calls" (similar to {{Page:Book.djvu/024}} ) in every namespace instead of just the template namespace.

Can somebody please confirm they are experiencing the same results for starters? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I see that it is listing missing transclusions, rather than missing templates. Now is that good or bad? Do we really want empty red links for missing pages in the main ns? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That's beside the point - the page is called Special:WantedTemplates for a reason. It's broke plain and simple.

If anything, Special:WantedPages would be where I'd expect missing main ns pages to come up but now that I've checked it, that seems screwed up too (though its been so long that I've used it I can't be sure).

I get the feeling somebody's been dickin' around with the internal search mechanism's content-type settings or something - I'll check Phab when I get some more time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair points, I was thinking aloud, not making recommendations, or reaching conclusions. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Well isn't that just peachy? (Fault seen here as well. And stop me if I'm wrong, don't I recall there used to be three links for each :WantedTemplates entry ala Special:WhatLinksHere i.e. page (←links|edit)? Whatever happened to (|edit)?) AuFCL (talk) 05:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: It has been recorded that the change came about due to wishes to view Module: ns, and presumably it was unknown/forgotten by the editor and those checking that other components are transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Saw that. Out and out "Works for wikipedia so why are you whinging?" mindset. AuFCL (talk) 06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I may well have rediscovered Billinghurst's "it has been recorded" above but Requesting "Special:WantedModules" page looks to me to be a likely precursor to the problem. AuFCL (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)