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 = 2,473,252
No. of articles = 693,043
No. of files = 23,141
No. of edits = 8,923,208


No. of pages in Main = 410,251
No. of pages in Page: = 1,708,638
No. validated in Page: = 375,291
No. proofread in Page: = 558,449
No. not proofread in Page: = 605,958
No. problematic in Page: = 29,746
No. of validated works = 2,945
No. of proofread only works = 1,850
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 201,485
% transcluded pages in Main = 49.11
Σ pages in Main


No. of users = 2,869,501
No. of active users = 322
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)

Request protection of Main Page templates[edit]

According to the very first point under Wikisource:Protection_policy#Special_cases “The main page should always be protected…”, yet this edit took place today. Some care and attention, please? (Normally Phe-bot is the sole updater of Template:ALL TEXTS!) 114.73.248.245 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have place soft protection on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To fellow administrators, I have up'd the protection on a couple of templates that won't need updating. I have a question about Template:Highlights, should this be sitting at semi/soft? If we are unlikely to change it, then we should be protecting it further. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Other[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)

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)

From https://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Google_OCR:
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)

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)

I have just blocked Rafaeladasilvamelo for three days, and stated that their editing is not working. Special:Contributions/Rafaeladasilvamelo shows a continuation of problematic editing, and one that it does not show the community is addressing and resolving. Edits that change the context of a page, and without edit summary; creation of subpages that are more like categories; pages that are scan-supported where the text alone is added; texts that are evidently text-supported though not uploaded, where they are copying and pasting, then putting images of tables. The work is not of a standard, and the user does not wish to converse on these matters, despite numerous attempts by numerous administrators.

I believe that these Some facts concerning the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. Presented to a hearing of legislative committees. Albany, April 5, 1910 pages should be deleted. If we cannot have the conversation with the user, and seek suitable changes, then we should extend the block. Also note Special:DeletedContributions/Rafaeladasilvamelobillinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

request for a move[edit]

After a discussion I wanted to move a page to its previous title Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/A Supplement to Mons. Pingré’s Memoir on the Parallax of the Sun (now redirect), but I moved it to Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/A Supplement to Mons. Pingré’s Memoir on the Parallax of the Sun28 by mistake and it seems I am not allowed to move it once more. May I ask for moving it? Thank you very much and apologies for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits[edit]

Perhaps somebody could keep an eye on Editing Wikipedia, there have been a couple of blankings by an IP editor recently. I left a note at the IP's talk page, but I'm going to be offline for a while. -Pete (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I have poked a soft protection onto it for a year. Generally no need for it to be edited. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, thank you -- the soft protection seems entirely sensible. But the IP block, to me, seems excessive; how can we know whether it was malicious, or an innocent mistake? There were only two edits. Also, since I already took a "assume good faith" approach on the IP's talk page, if it was an innocent mistake, they are likely to be confused by the mixed messages. Could you unblock? I'm happy to keep an eye on the IP in the next few weeks (though I'll be offline this weekend). -Pete (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a one day block, so I wouldn't fuss it. Once I will AGF for a test, twice like that and I will put a shot across the bows, especially as it places a marker against the IP address for any future instance. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent block[edit]

I have just blocked an IP address for vandalism. I will look into block procedure more closely, but am open to suggestions about how to handle this one. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI, in regards to that particular IP you may want to see this - [[1]]. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Knocking on your door. I am sure you are aware of my lack of confidence where blocking is concerned. Looking for some guidance here. I'll take any lumps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I changed a few things. In general, we don't block IPs forever, since they do usually get shuffled around. Also, I blocked talk page and email access; we wouldn't usually do that, but this wasn't vandalism of main space pages, it was abuse of a contributor, and there's no need to give them talk page or email access to continue it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and for the explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@IanDBeacon: I like your sort of bothersomeness. Please keep it up. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 21:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Karel Čapek[edit]

I would like to ask to move Author:Karel Capek to his full name Author:Karel Čapek (now a redirect). Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Interface administrators[edit]

Hi. Please see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Unisfu5m161hs4zl. I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome. 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…? 114.73.248.245 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and accidental changes are easily reversed. If we had more users it would be more of a problem, but as it stands this kind of distinction is more cumbersome than helpful in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for move[edit]

I would like to ask to move back Author:Václav Jebavý to Author:Otakar Březina per discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Pseudonyms. Thank you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


Fix move[edit]

As far as I can tell Author:Ellis Paxson Oberholzer was not moved correctly (preserving history). It was recreated at Author:Ellis Paxon Oberholtzer in an attempt to fix the spelling of the author's name, but is still inconsistent with Wikipedia's choice (which is not necessarily a problem). --Azertus (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)