Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.
  • Administrators please use template {{closed}} to identify completed discussions that can be archived
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 3,481,354
No. of articles = 870,510
No. of files = 19,402
No. of edits = 11,264,256

No. of pages in Main = 510,316
No. of pages in Page: = 2,540,895
No. validated in Page: = 490,082
No. proofread in Page: = 822,058
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,011,643
No. problematic in Page: = 36,351
No. of validated works = 5,100
No. of proofread only works = 3,770
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 302,020
% transcluded pages in Main = 59.18
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,991,760
No. of active users = 445
No. of group:autopatrolled = 475
No. in group:sysop = 25
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 16

Checkuser requests[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Remove Wikisource-bot from Confirmed users[edit]

This is just general tidying, so no rush…

Wikisource-bot is currently in the manually added Confirmed users group, but the account is also implicitly a member of Autoconfirmed users. These groups confer the exact same permissions, so the only difference is that one is manually assigned and the other is automatic.

Could one of the `crats please uncheck the "confirmed user" checkbox on Special:UserRights/Wikisource-bot? --Xover (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Prune inactive bots[edit]

Per WS:AN#Time to prune the bot accounts?, could a `crat please uncheck the "bot" checkbox from the permissions page for each of the bots listed in that discussion? --Xover (talk) 08:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2021 (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)

Interface administrators[edit]

Hi. Please see I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome. Pictogram voting comment.svg 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…? 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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)

Time to prune the bot accounts?[edit]

The following accounts have the +bot flag but have not been active since ~2015, and have listed operators that have similarly not edited on enWS in the same period or are not so active here that it seems likely they will resume bot operations any time soon.

Since bot accounts' edits do not show up in recent changes, and are exempt from some restrictions on high volume editing, they are high value targets for hijacking (full list of permissions here). Inactive and possibly abandoned bot accounts are also high risk of actually being hijacked (for example, a user that has moved on from enWS sells an old computer where the bot account credentials are saved).

Bots who have not edited in 5+ years, and whose bot approval is consequently equally old, are also at significant risk of no longer being up to date with current standards and practices, and cannot safely be assumed to still have consensus for their task (the policy actually says these should have admin-style periodic reconfirmations, but, you know…).

I therefore propose that we prune these 7 bot accounts (of 22 total) by removing the +bot flag and blocking the accounts (with a suitable log message making clear that it is a preventative technical measure only and no form of indication the operator has done anything wrong).

  1. BenchBot (last edit: 2011-04-09) operated by Slaporte (last edit: 2016-07-03)
  2. CandalBot (last edit: 2014-01-15) operated by Candalua (last edit: 2018-12-12)
  3. DougBot (last edit: 2011-08-10) operated by DeirdreAnne (last edit: 2018-10-29)
  4. JVbot (last edit: 2011-04-23) operated by John Vandenberg (last edit: 2018-08-11)
  5. JackBot (last edit: 2014-09-17) operated by JackPotte (last edit: 2020-07-15)
  6. LA2-bot (last edit: 2012-03-05) operated by LA2 (last edit: 2020-07-15)
  7. Robbie the Robot (last edit: 2015-04-28) operated by AdamBMorgan (last edit: 2016-04-01)

Operators who are still active here or on other projects (e.g. JackPotte and LA2) and either have plans to resume bot operation or want to hold on to the account just in case (for example if the bot is used for ad hoc tasks) should comment to that effect here. I propose that for any operator that's sufficiently active and interested to respond here that should be sufficient grounds to leave the bot account active.

For any bot whose operator is not currently active and where the bot has not edited in ~5 years, I suggest we should require a quick recheck with the community (in WS:S#Bot approval requests) before resuming operations; but unblocking and re-adding +bot should otherwise be just a simple `crat request. Or put another way, it's the bot's actions that need rechecking, not the mere technical unlocking and adding the +bot flag. --Xover (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(Last time we did this on WS:S.) 1 through 4 and 7 as bots of inactive users I would support the rights removal through inactivity. For 5 and 6, if operators say they expect to use their bot then the rights can be retained, otherwise in lieu of that comment, then remove the rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Request move[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg 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[edit]

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)

YouTube hyper-links[edit]

On all pages in this document currently marked “Problematic,” remove the space from y&nbsp; Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: you want them white-listed, right? Can you make a list in the format:
And I'll whitelist them. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Here’s a list:

youtube\.com/watch\?v=YJ8LfWC1Wks&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=kL_IpqRf8RM youtube\.com/watch\?v=hKBZemnS1j4&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=cufftGM8040&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=jLi-Yo6IucQ youtube\.com/watch\?v=8UzqChhaTP8 youtube\.com/watch\?v=RTK1lm1jk60&feature=emb_logo youtube\.com/watch\?v=4dKyreFllgQ youtube\.com/watch\?v=AKYdyTYz6Jw youtube\.com/watch\?v=y9WPuA6EUaw youtube\.com/watch\?v=Fag0aC_M0_U youtube\.com/watch\?v=DOemCrZac4M

  • I have removed listed duplicates. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC).
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I have suspended the domain on the blacklist, please add them into place, and come back here when they are done. I think that we may be able to design a sneakaround, let me think it through. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Billinghurst: One option is to deny adding links to non-autoconfirmed (with or without an edit count requirement) users via the AbuseFilter, rather than the spam blacklist, which is a blunt instrument. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, though we can just play with the order of the url rather we have and the blacklist becomes youtube\.com/watch?\v=billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
What about the ones without the feature=emb_logo junk? And changing the text to circumvent a blacklist we actually have control over seems sub-optimal? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 11:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • billinghurst: I have added in the hyper-links to the text. I agree that an autoconfirmed/edit-count abuse filter would be preferable to the many trips here to ask for whitelisting/partial disabling. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

Restore deleted items so I can finish transcriptions[edit]

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)

Pictogram voting comment.svg 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[edit]

  • 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)

mw:Snippets/Hide prefix in category[edit]

Found this javacript and its implementation (mw:Template:HideCategoryPrefix) and think that it would be useful in numbers of places, eg. Category:Dictionary of National Biography biographies and maybe category can take multiples variances of rootpagename strings. Doing something else and won't be able to look at it for a little while, so just putting it out there for discussion. It would also be useful to be able to toggle, so something like mw:Snippets/Hide prefix in SpecialPrefixIndex. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Mpaa crat resignation[edit]

Just a note that, as part of admin confirmation closures today, I have actioned @Mpaa's resignation as bureaucrat.

Hesperian 02:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Request removal of admin hat[edit]

due to the uncertainty of my future activity level and other considerations. I'll try not to make too many mistakes that require my knocking on doors for tools :) Thanks much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 04:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Agree on the sympathies of the response, though not certain that we can oppose a resignation. LBJ is well aware that she can keep her tools, and that she can have them back when she desires. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Ah, such sweet resignation. Thanks :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown. BD2412 T 06:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    or, Uneasy lies the head that wields a broom, as the case may be :) We once had a beloved Diamond dove who displayed signs of fear whenever she saw a broom. I suppose that partly falls under "other considerations." :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    My thoughts are best expressed by User:billinghurst, and hope you return sooner and not later. — Ineuw (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Stewards requested to action Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

New project: Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW)[edit]

I have been alerted to this new project by User:Sannita (WMF). They are having "SDAW Happy Hour" meeting next April 15, at 14:00 UTC.

It will be mostly an informal meeting to introduce the project and enjoy a little chat all together. :) The meeting will take place on Google Meet:

It will be my 0200, so dodgy for me. I think that there is relevance for us to how we can structure our data, so we can look to have tools that interrogate our data, most especially for easy inhalation into Wikidata for creations, and the pull and interlinks. (our usual story). @Xover, @Inductiveload: it may better suit you? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I'll try to pen in an appearance there just to watch for any impacts that hit us.
But I have to warn you, this effort will address none of the things you outline. Its focus is exclusively Wikipedia, and the unique structure of pages on the Wikipedias, and appears to be motivated mostly by making Wikipedia Enterprise Edition™ more commercially viable (well, that and the CompSci aliens that think Wikifunctions is a good idea). --Xover (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Xover: Well, actually SDAW is a different project from Enterprise. SDAW is the follow-up project of Structured Data on Commons, as you can read on the MediaWiki page about the project, so we're building mostly from that idea - but we're actively seeking feedback also from projects other than Wikipedia, because... well, there isn't just Wikipedia out there!
Anyway, if you can make it to the meeting, I think we can discuss this verbally, which usually is a better way to clarify things. :) See you there! --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hide Print/export (p-wikisource-export-portlet) in edit mode[edit]

Can we please hide #p-wikisource-export-portlet when in edit mode. Unneeded in that ode and it is pushing down other components in my LH sidebar. Presuming that it is best to hide in the JS, rather than having to write it into CSS. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have filed a ticket to stop the server sending it at all. If nothing happens there, we could add this to global CSS:
.action-edit #p-wikisource-export-portlet {
    display: none;
But that's a hack if we could get it sorted server-side. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't remember where the guts of operations occurred. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Koavf[edit]

I ask another admin to step in and review the posts of @Koavf: on his own talk page in this thread and on my talk page in this thread. In particular, use of the following phrases when addressing me:

  • Why would you remove accessibility features and make the site more hostile to the blind?
  • you're admitting your own ignorance
  • Using your admin rights to then lock it from editing is just petty and childish.
  • I didn't belittle your intelligence: I pointed out how you admit that you don't know what you're talking about.
  • Now please stop being rude and answer my questions.
  • I am not claiming that you are unintelligent but that you are simply ignorant: you don't know what you're talking about.
  • I would have to assume that you're either uninformed or at some point, if you keep on saying it once you know better, you are lying.

I had asked him to stop belittling me [1] at which point he added accusations of lying [2]. I ask an admin to please help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Not one that I think that I should be touching. You both are feet stampers, and need to learn to get along. I would ask whether you (collective) both reflect on what is the ultimate goal and the ultimate collective means to achieve. I don't think that either of you are really that far apart, and I would suggest that as a means to resolution that things are brought to the community for a consensus rather than heatedly battled on user talk page, as when one addresses to a matter to the community it is often said differently than when sitting in opposition to a person. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As I see it there is a lack of effort to understand each other’s point of view on both sides and committing to useless verbal fights instead of asking community to help to solve controversial issues. However, it is true that Koavf tends to bring the controversy into the personal level and their arguments are mixed with insults and personal attacks, which has to stop. Hopefully no admin tools will be necessary to enforce it.
As for the two controversies linked above:
  1. The Portal:Yale Shakespeare. I suggest an alternative version of the page is created somewhere and both versions are introduced to the community, explaining their pros and asking for independent opinions.
  2. The controversy over template Portal Parent and the connected heated discussion reminds me of once famous Hyphen War of Czechoslovakia. While I do not see it worth that many words, I also do not understand why that edit was reverted without explaining what was bad about it, and what I understand even less, why one reverted good-faith edit led to protecting the page from all non-admins. I agree that admin tools should be used with big consideration. However, personal attacks are not a solution either. I suggest Koavf makes a suggestion of the change on the portal’s talk page, and unless some important points are raised against, the change can be made.
If this discussion continues, it should probably also move away from the AN to Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

Autopatrol request[edit]

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)