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 = 2,437,201
No. of articles = 683,224
No. of files = 23,137
No. of edits = 8,830,021

No. of pages in Main = 404,035
No. of pages in Page: = 1,680,258
No. validated in Page: = 371,696
No. proofread in Page: = 542,215
No. not proofread in Page: = 599,609
No. problematic in Page: = 29,534
No. of validated works = 2,903
No. of proofread only works = 1,774
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 195,138
% transcluded pages in Main = 48.30
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,863,405
No. of active users = 317
No. of group:autopatrolled = 456
No. in group:sysop = 28
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 21

Checkuser requests[edit]

  • Wikisource:checkuser policy
  • At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to 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]

Billinghurst interface rights[edit]

@Hesperian: or other crats. Would you please assign me interface rights, and say for expiry in a week. I have a gadget that needs some fixing. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 11:57, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Request for unprotection of Is There a Santa Claus?[edit]

Please unprotect Is There a Santa Claus?, a versions page. This page had been a text page before it was moved at 01:43, 13 June 2011 to Is There a Santa Claus? (New York Sun), which has been protected for integrity since 09:30, 23 March 2007. ‎Is There a Santa Claus? should be unprotected since it has been changed to versions page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this logic, so Yes check.svg Done . Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I need help reviewing a Global RFC[edit]

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Please delete all "not proofread" pages from Index:History of Oregon volume 1.djvu[edit]

Would a kind admin please delete all the pages marked blue/"problematic" or pink/"not proofread" at this work? I have now overwritten the file with a much better scan from Internet Archive, which has a much better OCR layer. Those pages are a mess. (Please note, there are a number of pages that have been proofread, so don't delete them all!) Thank you, -Pete (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

upcoming admin confirmations[edit]


Just flagging that I'll be on vacation with no internet access for a couple of weeks from Saturday, so I will not be in a position to close the June admin confirmations on 1 July.

I was late to close the May ones, and the community jumped in and closed them, start the new discussions, and left me to do the archiving etc. Happy to do the same this month if you want -- do what you do, and I'll clean up any loose ends when I'm back online in mid-July.

Cheers all, love your work!

Hesperian 01:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I have closed four as confirmred, though left AdamBMorgan's as it will not be confirmed. I will leave that to a 'crat who can then request removal to stewards at m:SRP. There are no July confirmations to list. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Requested.— Mpaa (talk) 17:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
And done.— Mpaa (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Gadgetised GoogleOCR tool[edit]

Hi to all. From a discussion in one of our help spaces, it was identified that there was an "improved/better" OCR tool around and in use (GoogleOCR). I have quickly added this as a gadget in the development section, and just poked some text at it. We should assess that it is a better tool, and if it is then we probably should retire the old tool. The text at MediaWiki:Gadget-GoogleOCR could do with some improvement and probably the insertion of file:GoogleOcr toolbar button.png. I will look at it again when I have some quality time. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It is used on Wikisources in languages with scripts that are not supported by the standard Tesseract OCR system. It should not be used where that system can be used instead, as there is a limit to the number of requests we can make against Google's services.
as a note.— Mpaa (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
As answered by @Samwilson: in a Wikisource global chat, the limit for Google Cloud Vision API (i.e., our Google OCR button) is 1800 requests per minute. This limit can only be crossed by mass-scale ocr by multiple users simultaneously. So I don't think we need to be concerned about this "limit". Hrishikes (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst, @Mpaa, @Hrishikes: Yup, it's true. We only once got over three requests per minute in the last month. If we want to use Google in place of phetools, we can do so and probably not worry about excessive usage (given that it's still just an ad hoc thing; if we wanted to automate whole works being run though it that might require more discussion, although would probably also be fine). Sam Wilson 01:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
If we are running whole works through, I would guess that we would limit these, either as priority, or rate-limiting, as they are hardly urgent. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: yeah, and even if we did we probably wouldn't be doing it all that often. We could do a 500 page work every day, for instance, and not get close to the limits. :) I'm in favour of retiring the old gadget. Sam Wilson 02:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
As pywikibot runs pages sequentially, as long as we run with some due consideration it shouldn't particularly matter for the tool, as the bot usually runs at slower rates than pt0 or pt:1 anyway. Just make sure that we aren't running multiple parallel high-rate bot sessions. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Promotional article[edit]

The article Godrej Alive is clearly created for promotion of real estate. This is visible from its language. Nor it is anything of importance that is needed on this project anyway. I think it should be deleted. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't require notification here. If you think that it is spammy, please mark it with{{delete|spam}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for informing. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

m:Community health initiative/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently in development of partial blocks. Sitewide blocks are not always the appropriate response to some situations. Smaller, more tactical blocks may defuse situations while retaining constructive contributors. The goal of this project is to give wiki administrators a more robust set of tools to be able to better respond to different user conflict situations.

Please discuss this project at m:Talk:Community health initiative/Per user page, namespace, and upload blocking.

Alert to the admin community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Significant childish abuse from IP[edit]

Please see Template:Ip. Sorry I'm not sure if there is a better way to report this. Chrissymad (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Chrissymad, I see that a steward has intervened. Seems the best way to have acted. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


User:Fuericide_Bomber. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Kind of you to provide a pre-emptive warning; I would have skipped straight to the banning. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have blocked him if I were an admin--he's clearly here only to vandalize. It's an en.wp practice. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
LTA troll, block on sight, on site . Tell stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
... what is LTA? Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
long term abuse — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Index:Ossendowki - From President to Prison.djvu[edit]

Can an admin delete the redirect? It is not needed and not editable. Ankry (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneHrishikes (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone to assist a new user[edit]

Is there someone there who will be able to try and communicate with Rafaeladasilvamelo (talkcontribs), as my methodology is failing. There are a range of, what I consider, problematic edits: empty page creations with just headers (now deleted), unusual editing (reverted), incorrect use of headings of works of where we have a parent (updated, and relinked) additions of text directly when we have the scans available. I have no doubt that this is a good faith editor, it is just levels of editing outside of our existing style. It needs someone with a different approach than me, or simply someone other than me. Thanks if there is someone who can assist. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Problems continue. The user is now working within A Dictionary of Saintly Women and has now been informed and prodded twice about the presence of scans, though wishes to copy and paste text to subpages; in addition we get headerless pages, headers that are empty, pages with one word of text, no prev/next, or simply poor quality proofreading. The user does not communicate, and where communication is attempted they have removed that communications (we have had four admins there communicating).

We are not getting quality work, and we are getting work that needs a high level of support to bring it close to standard. I have given up even trying with the worst pages and am now just deleting them where there are multiple errors (indicator of what is happening). The choices are to either let poor quality work exist, or we need a means to improve the quality of the work, either by the user, or by other community. Usually with this sort of editing we have been able to communicate and support users to are preferred means of editing and style, though that has not worked in this instance. If we are unable to get an improvement, and we are unable to get communication, then we may to intervene directly. It seems that we are moving to intervention. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

This issues continue in other areas. I am proposing to block this user after issuing them with a final warning. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I should add that I've been through all cross-wiki contributions of this editor that are in English. Most of them had to be reverted either by me or another editor had found them first. The contributions to ptWP were more challenging to assess as my Portuguese is extremely limited, but I note that many contributions there were also reverted, corrected or amended in some way. I am not averse to the suggestion of an enforced break from editing here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

IP making personal attacks![edit]

An IP (talkcontribs) is making personal attacks on my talk page. Could someone please block and/or globally lock this IP address? IanDBeacon (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another IP is involved to - (talkcontribs). Someone block the host too. IanDBeacon (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
IPs have been locked globally. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)