Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard/Archives/2016

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2016, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Checkuser requests

Log

Users	Results
122.177.0.0/16	Recent support telephone number spam, soft blocked for a month. It may be in other IP ranges, this will do as start. If a soft block doesn't work, I will harden the block, though I am wanting to try a combination of techniques to remedy this situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
67.23.112.250	Sockpuppet checks for WMF Banned User active here with original account and socks after noticing activity elsewhere. Socks found + locked, IP globally blocked for a couple months. Jalexander-WMF (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

m:Special:PermanentLink/15753091#Tikeem pees at Oracle Arena@enwikisource

The following discussion is closed:

actioned by steward

I have placed a request for Checkuser to stewardson the account "Tikeem pees at Oracle Arena" and others that have vandalised in a similar manner in the past week. I have asked for the checking steward to take local action if they are unable to take global action as preventative measures, otherwise to let us know if such actions will need to be locally undertaken by admins by other means. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• I have undertaken this request. MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

m:Special:PermanentLink/16022831#Lock_for_Just4Cash4You

The following discussion is closed:

actioned by steward

I performed a cross-wiki spam check on this wiki, as no other CU data was available due to the account age. Savh (talk) 02:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Other

Cross-wiki Hoax

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

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?

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)

Resurrected the bot patrolling that was JVbot

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/patrol — billinghurst 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)

FYI: Rename proposal for WS: ns page

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)

Done thanks for the note. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User requesting block

The ip contribs and page User talk:63.155.16.2 is requesting that they be blocked, can someone oblige them. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. BD2412 T 20:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Bots are not capable of proofreading

I am comfortable with a bot formatting and undertaking some standardised text changes, however, I am not comfortable with the bot SHSPbot (talk • contribs) 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_requests— Mpaa (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)

AutoWikiBrowser - some questions

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?

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T114200

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)

After getting no traction on the fix/amendment, I have reverted it in gerrit. I am hoping that it will be incorporated, though probably won't show up here for at least a week. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Template Code in Module: name space

I have been noticing a number of entries under the module: name space which contain no LUA code at all. Most seem to have been imported (with revision history) presumably from wikipedia and all by user:AdamBMorgan just under one year ago. Some examples:

• module:high-risk
• module:module other
• module:module rating
• module:ombox

Is there any point in keeping these—as obviously nobody has noticed that they are unused—or alternatively should they be moved into template: space where at least they might become useful? AuFCL (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Stray Babel categories

Just wanting to do a reality check before I delete a pile of categories. Special:UncategorizedCategories has some empty Babel categories that were autocreated on 17 Sept. They look to be wrongly named to me, given that the usual format is Category:User en-N. Can anyone think of a reason to keep the new ones? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Put it this way: as autocreated if they are necessary and you delete them they will be populated again anyway; if unnecessary (and empty) it is not as if you have lost any content. My opinion is this: go ahead and delete them. AuFCL (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:ChicagoTeddyBears106

Clearly a vandalizer, please block. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChicagoTeddyBears106

Done and all contributions have been either deleted or reverted. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wave of spam accounts

The start of the holiday season in the US is bringing us the joy of SPAM.

Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam.

. . .and spam. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the persistence of the spammer(s), should we consider temporarily protecting the Scriptorium? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth bothering since they are creating almost as many main-space pages as edits there? (Also I am in two minds about your deleting the revisions: the effort you are putting is appreciated but at the same time will a normal user be equally put off encountering so many "You cannot view this diff because..." It sort of rubs their noses in an unnecessary 'us vs them' situation; and perhaps that very annoyance is something the spammers are enjoying?) Fimus equinus (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's worth hiding them, or the spam information is visible in the logs and through permalinks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I do get your point. It is just that the spammers may be getting a certain amount of perverse joy out of watching you expend all that effort too. It is always a trade-off. Fimus equinus (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but then they're trolls. There is little we can do about the perverse joy of trolls, but we can prevent spam from showing up on our site. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘

Either of you gents taken a crack at the abuse filter or log yet? I tried to reinforce some existing filters for a quick fix yesterday but that "help number" one keeps getting through it seems. Don't worry if its all above your pay grade but I do recommend taking a look if not just to isolate then block some of the IP addresses that make attempts but "fail" thanks to a in-place in filter. Rememeber to check your User: rights settings too.

I just don't have the free time at the momement; @Billinghurst, @Mpaa:? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

<chuckle> Can we please leave just one "help line" type-of-spam in place the next time? Its kind of hard to build a filter without an example to test it against :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Fwiw... I've modified Filter 4 to [hopefully] "address" the help line type of spamming. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No longer on OTRS mail

For the community to note that I am no longer handling OTRS mail. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Moved page text gone awry

I am not sure whether it is just me or whether others can reproduce.

When we move a page the text from MediaWiki:Movepage-moved should be used as the template to reproduce. When moving pages today, I am just seeing the default templateas show in AllMessages, not our updated page. Anyone able to report on what they are seeing before I seek the help of Phabricator. Anyone been in and made any changes? FWIW I test at Meta, and it seems to be functioning as expected there.

If you want something to test, you can use Author:testpage. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Orwell III, @Beeswaxcandle, @Mpaa, @Prosody, @Hesperian, @Ineuw, @EncycloPetey: anyone else. Would one of you please confirm or deny my thoughts above. Makes it hard to report a bug if no-one confirms it. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: just moved the Author:Testpage selecting to create a redir and the message that came up upon success is {{MediaWiki:Movepage-moved}}

The page "$1" (links, delete, edit) has been moved to "$2" (links, delete, edit, revert).

• Remember to check for links to the old title for double redirects.
• Consider placing {{subst:dated soft redirect|"[[$4]]"}} over the redirect, if it is unneeded.

NOT

"$1" has been moved to "$2"

So I'm not seeing anything "odd" or like what you are reporting. George Orwell III (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, I'm seeing nothing out of the ordinary. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean the extra text about creating soft redirects and checking "what links here". These are missing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Based on that tidbit from BWC, i tried moving the test-page again under a User: preference language setting of en-gb (English-Goofy British) and now see the default message as well, so I bet you folks are not set to "straight" en in your settings too.

FYI... The recommendation has long been to avoid selecting language subsets just for this kind of reason (html input form recently redesigned to use OOUI layout with mw-messaging). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If anybody decides to "fix" this remember Ineuw: MediaWiki:Movepage-moved/en-ca AuFCL (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

English to Catalan? Or is that "Canadian English"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

<chuckle> He meant English (Canadian).

I'm hesitant to go about the "usual fixin" since this is a new phenomenon (its not like the sub-page, lang-specific messages were recently deleted or similar as was usually the cause before). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It was meant both as a dig at the fact mediawiki makes a great show of being all-international-linguistics-friendly and then drops the ball like this; as well as a subtle reminder that (lots of) MediaWiki:-space pages have a /en-gb, /en-ca etc. sub-page for language variants which are easily forgotten about. However you guys just let the "magic smoke" out… AuFCL (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Back-up a sec. I can only find a dozen or so sub-English pages; where are you getting "lots of" from?

In fact there's more [crap] message sub-pages in other languages than English (not for long though!:) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I stand corrected [7]. Far fewer than I had expected. AuFCL (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T122712

Thanks to all, that would definitely seem to be the issue, though I haven't been in and changed my preference for a very long time. Seems a problematic setting, and not sure when that came into play in that fashion. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems every time a Special: page or other core component is redesigned to the oojs-ui "format", there is no guarantee any previous behavior/feature that were due to "happy mistakes" that went un-addresses before will be automatically "carried over" in the switch. Drop offs are usually because "bits" are being deprecated at the same time from what I've read on various Village Pumps. It may be time to truly avoid using monobook from now on as well (from what User:s have stated in those threads that is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

There was comment in the phabricator that some of our suspicions of cause were unlikely, so it is on hold. I may escalate it to the languages team as the system should be able to default to /en when there is no /en-gb or /en-ca version. In the interim for this case I have created the pages and inserted {{Mediawiki:Movepage-moved}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nothing else has changed except for the layout of the Special: move page itself. The MediaWiki:Movepage-moved message hasn't been touched since 2008 until you "bumped it" in December 2015 in search of a solution -- the message content was still unchanged regardless. Nobody deleted .../en-gb or .../en-ca; neither ever existed. Left with no other rationale explanation, the layout change had to trigger the new behavior; most other reporters believed that the "new behavior" should have been the default behavior all along (e.g. the absence of .../en-ca, .../en-gb messages should have never defaulted to the en message). It was only happenstance that it worked the way it did thanks in large part to not being ""touched" or "altered" over the course of many years.

I recall the same thing happened on the article history page and the watchlist page when the collapsible Legend boxes where added after years of being "static" too; .../en-ca and .../en-gb messages had to be added manually in order to restore the previous behavior. The key is that a "change" breaks the previous happenstance - what the specific change entails seems to be irrelevant here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it had been cached for a long period, but it not been working for me for over a month prior to that date, so the change isn't from anything that we have done locally, as best as I can tell. I have waved the phabricator under the nose of the language team and maybe they can explain how things are meant to work. One would hope that in English language wikis that they would take the existing (customised) /en rather than the default /en-gb. Asking us to have every message as /en, /en-ca and /en-gb is silly, having the users to know that /en-xx variations will cause that level of change and not to change it, makes a mockery of having the setting. So if that is the new expected behaviour, I am hoping for a solution from them. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I know its not anything "we" did locally; the meaningful change(s) to the Special:MovePage layout started to be merged around September 15 (see T86865) and continued to take refinements all the way through the end of November thanks to various other Tasks.

As best as I can recall, the only time a MW message "sub-page" is suppose to inherit the "root-page" message is when that "root-page" is an unaltered default populated by the "list" in the wiki code on the servers. At some point in time, inheritance might have worked with a manually modified "root-page" but that changed. The behavior, however, remained the same until something else came along and altered that status quo (like a format redesign in this case). So I suppose one option for us is to lobby to make our local message the default message. Of course that would most likely require some editing to make the various points more "project friendly".

My point all along has been not to use the MediaWiki namespace to host "complex" alterations of the default "root-page" message; that sort of complexity belongs in the Template: namespace and said template should then be called upon by the corresponding mw message space. Any sub-pages of that root-message should also call that same template if applicable. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Mediawiki namespace is purposeful for editinterface and the rights and permissions, and is designed to take complex alterations, so moving such to the Template is your decision, not the communities, and not a design aspect of the namespace. The namespace is set up with very specific restrictions by design, and moving such pages to the Template means that you then have to separately manage (and replicate) the security, and that is less than ideal. Years ago we faced issues with templates used being vandalised and had to implement security on those, it is clearly should not be the default choice to use template: ns. over the more secure mediawiki: ns. Beyond that, the basic principle that en-gb settings should not change the move message on English WS, and we should not have to design components to fix such. —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .

This member of the community would feel a bit better represented by someone who took the effort to understand the software design of the system they are speaking such bollocks about. It seems your interpretation of what you (personally) want the software to do is exactly the opposite of how it has always fundamentally (vs the occasional bug behaviour) operated. Now can this conversation please be dragged back out of fantasy to some kind of reality? If you want change there is a process, and it just may be the first step of that process is to stop making yourself look foolish to the developers on Phabricator? AuFCL (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported nonsense. That is the definition "imposed" upon folks by the ThomasV-types who wanted you to believe that was true in order to accept their vision of one thing or another. I know its hard for folks to accept they were sold a bunch fallacies early on in Wikisource's history [admittedly nobody knew any better at the time] but just because some things have managed to remain operational all this time doesn't mean it was done correctly to begin with. Nor does not change the facts at hand.

A system message is a snippet of plain text, wiki text, CSS, or Javascript that can be used to customize the behavior of MediaWiki and its appearance for each language and locale. MediaWiki uses messages for any user-facing part of the interface, allowing for internationalization and localization of the MediaWiki UI, for both core and extensions.^[8].

The key phrase there is a snippet of plain text [or] wiki text.. So I'm not saying we can't have "complex" messages in the MediaWiki namespace; just that need to be mostly comprised of other MediWiki messages. When the more "complex" message cannot be comprised of other mw-messages or begins to introduce new functionality or features that can't be easily "translated" at the end of the day, they should be templates and called from the Template: namespace instead. And any protection issues are minor ones at worst. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am frankly concerned that this demonstrates either a lack of understanding or of consistency between the base message and its language variants. Surely the trio MediaWiki:Movepage-moved, MediaWiki:Movepage-moved/en-ca and MediaWiki:Movepage-moved/en-gb should be either all deleted (to return to software default) or all equivalently customised; but two have two-up one down like this seems, well, a bit cock-eyed? AuFCL (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

PSM watch maintenance

I would gladly take on the maintenance of the PSM filter if it would help to reduce some workload. Like removing old entries to reduce the size of the data, etc. I would also reduce the watch days to be no more than 10 days max.— Ineuw talk 06:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

EasyLST gadget: a possible improvement

By chance I uncovered a few cases recently where the very act of attempting to validate a page in fact damaged it instead as a consequence of the validator having the above gadget enabled (whereas the proofreader presumably had not) and not noticing undesirable changes. I have made a small proposal for tweaking the gadget code and invite review, correction or action as appropriate. AuFCL (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn. AuFCL (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DellAIOBot

Vandalism run amok. [9] Not familiar enough yet with blocking policy or I would take it up myself. If no one is around and they keep up the behavior, I will give it a shot. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism is always blockable, if uncertain, especially with IP addresses, you can just make it for a couple of hours or a day, which stops the there and then while you start a conversation on their user talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How does one determine whether the block will be indefinite, three months, or just an hour or so? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

When the account is used for nothing but disruption, spam, or vandalism, we tend towards indefinite blocks. There is no reason for such an account to be active. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that for named accounts at enWS, it is either short term, or it is infinite. For IP addresses it can fill the range, except not infinite, which can be problematic. Longer term IP blocks would tend to be used for those managing spambots, or persistent vandals, and something that best comes from watching what others. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No bot. --5.228.45.73 12:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Still vandalism and disruptive edits and nothing else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

AbuseLog issues dealt with globally

To let people know that the recent persistent spam attempts for payday loans, I dealt with through the global title blacklist, rather than local blacklist. I will presume that they will be back with another variation, however, the recent mods seem to be holding for the moment. There was some value in not letting go of all my rights when I retired my xwiki role. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Repeated spamming

Please have a look at this. Hrishikes (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Reached the point which is above my pay-grade.

Duplicated the User:Ineuw/common.js/Gadget-NopInserter.js and neutralized lines 55 to 59 which eliminated the unwanted message. Then, added this code at the bottom of my common.js mw.loader.load('//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ineuw/common.js/Gadget-NopInserter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. The label shows up on the left panel but nothing happens. Can someone with the know please taste my cooking and adjust the flavour? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 15:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing at all, I mean no alert even when a nop is there on the previous page? BTW you have decided to never add nops, not only to suppress the message.— Mpaa (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again uncle Mpaa. Your post on my talk page was most helpful.

Often when nothing happens at all, there is a helpful javascript error message in your javascript console. Challenge: to figure out how to view the javascript console in your browser. There may be a "developer tools" menu somewhere? Hesperian 01:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

H., Thanks for the reminder. There is host of developer tools, and a javascript console but rarely look at it, let alone use it. — Ineuw talk 03:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Userpage request

Hello, would an administrator please delete my userpage on Wikisource so that my userpage from Meta will transclude? Thank you, --Pine (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Hesperian 08:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Kolz2016

User:Kolz2016, User talk:Kolz2016 -- explicite spam. Blocked indef. in ru.Wikisource. Hinote (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Prosody (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Attention all admins: Password policy for users with advanced permissions

“	Next Tuesday, March 15th, we will begin enforcing the result of the Password policy RFC that took place on meta and closed in January. After Tuesday, users with access to sensitive information, or the ability to change the mediawiki interface will be required to use an 8-byte long password. This affects all users in the Administrator, Bureaucrat, Checkusers, and Oversight groups on all wikis, along with a few other groups on particular wikis. Users covered by the new policy, whose password is not currently compliant, will be prompted to change their password the next time they login. Thanks. Chris (Wikimedia Security Team)	”
—User:CSteipp (WMF), via Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list

notified by — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:InterWikiTransclusion.js#update

Thanks! -Aleator (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Prosody (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Babel_AutoCreate

The latest 70 category creations of this bot should be deleted as they are malformed (m:Special:Permalink/15447542#Badly_named_Babel_AutoCreate_categories). I don’t want to flood by tagging them for SD so I request it here. If it would be convinient to tag them first, I’m happy to proceed.--Ah3kal (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Done — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban WayneRay from Wikimedia

Per Wikimedia's Global bans policy, I'm alerting all communities in which WayneRay participated in that there's a proposal to globally ban his account from all of Wikimedia. Members of the Wikisource community are welcome in participate in the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It would appear as if Cirt had already anticipated this request. AuFCL (talk)

Cirt did block WayneRay, though not for actions undertaken on this wiki. Our policy has been to only block real users for local actions, and the issue of extending blocks from one wiki to another has been discussed, and not to be seen as the expected practice. I commented at the discussion that the local blocking should be discounted in their discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. Noted in the wrong order. Mea culpa. AuFCL (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Page:Memorial written by Josephine Griffing asking that women be commissioned to assist with the care and education of the freedmen.tif/1

This page was moved from main namespace to Page namespace ans has wrong content model. Could an admin, please, change its content model using Special:ChangeContentModel? (likely to "Page: page")

Done— Mpaa (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Mpaa confirmation deferred

Hi folks,

When doing the admin confirmations this morning, I started to put Mpaa up for confirmation, one year having passed since their previous confirmation, but then I realised that they were appointed bureaucrat in October 2015. I figured that the bureaucrat appointment process surely counts as sufficient opportunity for community scrutiny, and therefore I reset their confirmation date to November 2016. Please speak up if you disagree with this.

Cheers, Hesperian 02:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Heartily concur with this approach Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

+1 — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable. BD2412 T 00:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:ThisAccountIsblocked

• Special:Contributions/ThisAccountIsblocked
• Special:Contributions/ThisAccountIsblocked1

Marked some test edits of there's for speedy, and they reverted , I'd like a second opinion from an admin.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Deleted contributions and blocked both accounts. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Time out needed

• Special:Contributions/104.235.93.208 - Re-creation of deleted material , I know because I asked for it to be speeded last time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

  Has been managed by another. I am wondering whether it is BambiFan101 of olden times, or there is another numbskull in that space of Disney disruptive editing. I have put out feelers to a CU at enWP for some intelligence.

  To block the ranges at enWS would be /14, a /15, a /16 (which equates to 7 /16s, which is big and not desirable), and presumably there are other ranges available to circumvent. If it continues we either just need to delete .. delete .. delete, or we would need to go use abuse filters based on keywords, and while that will have some effectiveness though would require us to think bigger in Disney keyword space. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Also, most of the additions are for titles and categories that will not likely exist here in the next hundred years because of copyright issues. I have therefore been protecting indefinitely most persistent recreations of these items against anyone who does not have authorization to patrol. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Rejigged Special:AbuseFilter/28 to start to capture this rubbish. First draft.

Administrator Ineuw gives another user control of account

Through a phabricator ticket user Ineuw (talk • contribs) gave access to his account to another Wikimedia volunteer. This is a direct breach of wmf:Terms of Use and an unacceptable behaviour. Accounts with advanced rights should never be offered to anyone, and I believe that Ineuw should stand reprimanded for such actions. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed. — Ineuw talk 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I am posting this in defiance of a directive not to do so. However it cannot be denied that Ineuw's basic issue was only solved by a violation of accepted procedure; whereas strict adherence to said procedure would have resulted in…what? Nothing? To me this speaks worlds about the shortcoming of "the system"; and nothing whatsoever for the benefits of "toeing the line."

The shame, therefore does not in any wise devolve upon Ineuw, without doubly rebounding upon the less-than-satisfactory performance of "the community." Hang your heads, collectively in shame! AuFCL (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Is "Page Tag Bot" legitimate?

I have not seen any announcement yet Page_Tag_Bot contributions have started appearing today—so far apparently tagging pages for category:Nonstandard texts with no clue given as to what is actually wrong with its chosen items.)

Apart from a vague statement of operations (which is at least better than the local equivalent version!) If it is in fact script-driven as change remarks suggest my personal position is that this script ought to be open to at the very least expert scrutiny (and the results reported upon publicly) before the bot is permitted to continue to run.

Can anybody throw some light upon this and/or determine whether the beast needs application of a tranquilliser dart before it does something really annoying? AuFCL (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I've turned it off pending community consensus on the matter.[10] Hesperian 03:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking a discussion should take place in WS:S#Bot approval requests before the bot can proceed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct as per Wikisource:Bots. It looks as though whomever owns it put it into action on three wikis without authorisation. Unkewl. Disrespectful. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

[Aside. The edit summary to my previous post is ambiguous and may be misconstrued. It related to the last question posed, not to the subject matter itself. Apologies for any confusion that it may cause — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)]

I feel that this could be very useful, and therefore I support its use. Manually tagging new pages - especially when a bunch of new pages are created at once - can be annoying and can take a long time. BTW, isn't the bot requests page just for bots that require an official bot flag to run? —unsigned comment by 2601:183:100:87ae:a8e6:e239:c063:ba77 (talk) .

I'd be interested to hear more about how it could be useful. You've identified situations "when a bunch of new pages are created at once" but I'm not sure that happens very often here. You've said that bot tagging would help in such situations, but I'm not see how the bot has helped by applying this cleanup tag. What cleanup is required here? Hesperian 03:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I too would be interested to hear how it is more effective than our patrolling edits. Also to hear more detail than the bot's current statement of its task. The description may be right, however, it is not particularly sufficiently helpful or sufficiently informative to let it operate unhindered. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proactive resignation request

Hello fellow contributors - old & new

Sorry for being "silent" for some time now. Unfortunately I've had quite a bit more to do in meat-space compared to previous years. I've come to realize that no matter how much wishful thinking on my part that I can return & contribute in at least a minor administrative capacity (if anything at all), it would be highly unlikely for several more months.

That said, I think it be wise to proactively suspend my admin rights asap. I would like then to re-apply for them at some later point at which I hope to return in full force. I can only check back here up until early Monday morning EST - otherwise I'll only be on e-mail from then on.

If this does turn out to be my last hoorah, I'd briefly like to thank "everybody" for the wonderful experience Wikisource has been - Keep Going!

Prost,

George Orwell III (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: one (1) standing order {{support}} from me for whenever you do reapply, however long it takes. AuFCL (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

)-: all the best, and hope to see you back in full regalia. Thanks for all that you have done over the ages. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Your contribution has been invaluable. Thank you for your part in making it such a great experience here for me as well. Your help and your patience have been much appreciated. Be well and happy, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of thanks for your having been here so helpful. I'll be very happy if you can come back. --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help & support, and hope to see you back ASAP. — Ineuw talk 01:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of admin bit requested.[11] Enjoy your break George, you'll be missed. Hesperian 01:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Block request:Wikisource Addymin

User:Wikisource Addymin has an inappropriate username claiming adminship, claims the same on their user page and has vandalised Billinghurst's user page. Please block them (or at least do something). BethNaught (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, account is now globally locked. BethNaught (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons image of PSM deleted because of poor quality

This image was deleted from the Commons because of poor quality. If I had the opportunity, I would have gone back to Austria (circa 1915) and retaken the photo just to satisfy the quality requirements, even though Austria is not one of my favourite places to visit.

The interesting aspect of this request is, that when received two months ago, I requested on that page to leave the image alone because it's in the volume 88 of PSM. But, all traces of my request, and all entries relating to this image on my contributions list disappeared. I've gone through 24,000+ of my contributions and found no trace of the upload (November 30, 2012), nor my above July 2016 request on the deletions page.

Furthermore, I received another notice of a deletion request but the image was deleted before I had a chance to respond, and again, no trace of the image exists in my contributions.

Is this normal? How can I track down the missing information? I ask because I am very weary of the commons' instituting brutal German bureaucratic practices. — Ineuw talk 18:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons has a policy against deleting files that are in use on other Wikimedia projects regardless of poor quality. As for the rest, I have no idea. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ineuw:

• I have undeleted File:PSM V88 D207 Two hundred ton block of salt in a mine in austria.png. In this situation you should simply have politely asked the deleting admin to restore the file. Note that deleted contributions cannot be seen by the user, though you can see the log of the upload at here.
• For the second file, it is one that you moved to WP and it looks quite likely to be a copyright violation that should not have either been uploaded to enWP, nor transferred to Commons.
• @Beleg Tâl: there is no evidence that the file was in use here (we track CommonsDelinker actions through special:abuselog) so that cannot be our argument or a criticism of the admin. I have commented that it is part of PSM project when I undeleted.

— billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for the help. — Ineuw talk 00:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Abusive IP user (traced to Kansas City)

@Mpaa: This IP and this user and this user and this user (all likely the same person) have been consistently vandalizing my user page, my talk page, and this Robert Louis Stevenson novel. Mahir256 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

believe Done — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Concern about speedy validating

I am concerned that User:Nrgullapalli has been validating and proofreading pages at speeds too great to have actually read the content in sufficient detail. See Special:Contributions/Nrgullapalli. (I am aware, of course, of the possibility of tabbed browsing, but that doesn't seem to be the pattern here.) Billinghurst, Hesperian and I have at different times gone to their talk page to try and explain what is required. However, it doesn't seem to have made much if any difference. They continue to have found no errors when validating and on the only page with a character change count other than 0, introduced an extraneous character. I have reviewed a few pages randomly from the past 48 hours and have found several missed errors. As a result, every page that they have processed needs to be done again. Because of this, and the need to get through to the user, I am about to block for 3 days. Unfortunately, because of time zones, I will not be online when the user discovers this.

I am fully aware that this block is within the parameters of a controversial block and I will not object if another administrator elects to lift the block after discussion on the user's talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with User:Beeswaxcandle. I have come across User:Nrgullapalli's proofreading which it is not. I would not call them errors, but rather a deliberate effort. — Ineuw talk 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism connected with Wikipedia article Presidency of Thomas Jefferson

New editor has created and edited a Wikisource article Thomas Jefferson's Third Inaugural Address which is an article about a non-existent event. Jefferson only gave TWO Inaugural Addresses (see article at Monticello website quote: "During his eight years as president, Jefferson delivered two Inaugural Addresses." Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This vandalism has now extended by this user to James Madison's First Inaugural Address. Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

From their editing history they are evidently a vandalism-only account. Shearonink (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Done all looks managed in clean-up and block with warning. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this page qualifies for speedy deletion

A new user User:Asif Ahmmed Smik filled it his user page with biographical information as if it’s a Wikipedia article. But since it’s a user page I’m not sure if this qualifies as Beyond scope for speedy deletion. Marjoleinkl (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Crud! Resolved. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ensuring transclusions of proofread and validated works

Has anyone thought of a systematic means to ensure that our proofread and validated works are actually transcluded? We have our checking tools that can be manually run, though I don't know that they are necessarily are being run when a work has been validated, or a work has been proofread. Either way, having it done manually is a tedious task, and I am wondering if people have ideas on how we can do this systematically. I have a sneaking feeling that there are works that are sneaking through 1) untranscluded, or 2) untranscluded completely.

Once we have this information, we may be able to use this to look to manage the population of data to WD for the works, which is another task that we need to address. If we cannot work on this, then I suggest that we look to do some phabricator tasks to determine out our requirements with our colleagues through the Wikisources. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I came across an untranscluded work this weekend, but for which the entire text had been proofread. But I think this is only the second time I've seen one of those. No ideas that I've had for checking transclusion by bot seem properly feasible to me. The best I can suggest is generating a list of Index files (on suitably sized pages) and use MotM to go through as many as possible.

What about checking, for a given Index, that each page in Page ns is linked to a page in Main ns whose title starts with the same prefix specified in Index Title? I think this should cover most cases. (I was just simplify, rule needs to exclude empty pages etc. but just to give the gist of it)— Mpaa (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, nice, though maybe we don't need to be so neat? As we are wanting an indicator to check a work, if we can even identify a number of pages in a work, that is enough to get us to investigate … so where index:PAGENAME is in Category:Index Validated or Category:Index Proofread but not in Category:Fully transcluded and a Page:PAGENAME/{d}+ of the index is in Category:Proofread or Category:Validated is not marked as transcluded, tag the Index: to be investigated. Once investigated it is resolved and marked as being fully transcluded. How complex is that as a query? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A pywikibot script is not complex (it requires many API calls per index though). I should see if it is possible to solve this with one or two SQL queries on a given index. Maybe someone with more SQL experience can find a solution meanwhile.— Mpaa (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I (think) I might have found a solution based on two queries (Page:xxx/\d+ transcluded in Main ns) and (Page:xxx/\d+ in Cat:Pr, Val); and then compare the two sets of pages. Needs to run on tool-labs. I need to check this a bit more and then we might scan all the indexes as WS-bot and tag the suspects. Will elaborate more soon. I can post the skeleton of the code somewhere if someone is interested.— Mpaa (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I tested this a bit, it should be OK. There are cases where a validated page (e.g. a cover or and Adv) is not transcluded so this will give a fails (e.g. Page:A Christmas Carol.djvu/198). If this logic is good enough, I can port this into a pywikibot-like bot and then we run it over the Proofread/Validated Indexes. Can you specify a bit better how you would like to tag pass/fail and with which template?— Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, I think I am good to go (made a few trials, see [12])— Mpaa (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, I am currently marking as "Fully Transcluded" Indexes where not trascluded pages are 'Without text' only. Later on, I will make a second round for more complex cases (BTW I have revised the queries above, as I found several other cases to be handled). In the next step, I will mark as "Fully Transcluded" also in case not transcluded pages are 'Not transcluded'/'Without text'.

Would be nice to have a gadget to quickly add Category:Not transcluded at the end of the footer, so manual checking with 'checker' will be a lot faster. After marking the pages, the bot can be run again to take care of the indexes.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It was a maintenance tasks started years ago, where I added things manually to Category:Fully transcluded, though I have now migrated that check to {{index validated date}} with the parameter transcluded=yes and have created a negative flag category. This will cover validated works, and I will look at proofread at some point, though we could just do a standalone template. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

To close the loop, I have also created {{index transcluded}} which if says YES, does as above, if you say no, or leave empty it populates Category:Transclusion check required. If it is useful, we can bot apply it, and also add it to the Index: template as a default. I will leave the community to ponder. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as WD, the little that I've worked on has proven to me that this is a very tricky thing that cannot be easily automated (if at all). Even for the small set of works I've dealt with, the amount of preparatory work is enormous. Much of it involved disambiguation (sometimes creating more than one disambig. page per title), matching the correct targets at both ends (if they even existed), setting meaningful descriptions (which isn't as straightforward as I expected), and creating version / edition / translation data items there. Pushing information on our works through to WD is going to be a very, very big project. As I say, the work I've been doing is taking much more effort than expected, and I'm dealing with only 44 plays and 4 authors (the entire corpus of surviving ancient Greek drama). I can't begin to imagine what it would be like to tackle a larger chunk of this stuff. We really need a way to (1) chunk the project suitably as smaller tasks, (2) decide what exactly we want to send over, and (3) ensure beforehand that our side doesn't include errors / inconsistencies, such as different dates on different pages of a work, or (worse) incorrect titles such I have come across several times while doing the Greek drama data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you re the complexity, especially with no feedback loop. I think that we need a push tool (a gadget?) that allows the form entry of data from the Index: page with a feedback loop to what is in and WD, and/or what is not. Ideally I would like to have the data in WD first, then create a book template, like the creator tool, then create the Index page and continue to populate from the book template, or directly from WD. <shrug> I have been working my way through the works that I have done, and that is my labelling of {{wikidata edition}} so I know the works where I have more fully populated the edition's WD item.

In my limited data set (44 plays), I've come across (a) incorrect titles, (b) incorrect years of publication, (c) missing edition information, and all of that at our end. Now while it is true that wrong data is wrong data, I wouldn't want to be pushing all that information over to Wikidata without a means of ensuring that corrections in one place prompt a correction at the other project. We'd also need some mechanism for distinguishing original first editions of English-native works from all those wroks which are originally non-English and have been translated, or those works which exist here in a later edition than their first. Such works have a different data structure at Wikidata, where there is a central data item for the "original", and edition data items for all other editions, including translations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Initial matter resolved. Nothing else happening here with this conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

PotM administration

RL has become somewhat busy recently and doesn't look like reducing for at least the next couple of months (it's nothing to do with my health, for those who might panic about this, rather music, work and the enWS widow all need attention). This means that I'm unable to provide administration of the PotM and awards for a while. Could someone else please take over for a bit? I'm happy to answer questions and provide some guidance. Administration of PotM entails making the final decision on which work(s) has been selected for the month, putting the work into the PotM and Collaboration templates, maintaining WS:PotM, welcoming new contributors, and making the monthly participation awards. For this last, I've been keeping an offline list of participants in a Word document. None of the tasks require a sysop level of access, but they seem to fall more naturally to us because we tend to be higher contributors anyway.

I'm yet to do the February awards, but should have time over the Easter break to do so. I have made no record of the March contributions to the Prime Minister's Wives, which started late. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: For me, the most important question is, how the monthly work is selected? Is there a pool of works from which you select? Is it based on interest of the community? — Ineuw talk 14:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Selecting is a simpler matter, and isn't at issue. We have a whole discussion page for that, and works are usually discussed well in advance. Beeswaxcandle is asking for someone to handle posting of awards to participants, which is a process he's mostly done himself. This happens after a PotM has concluded, and it requires keeping track of the PotM participants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

BWC's request was understood. I am concerned about the process of selection. The rest is administrative work and that doesn't worry me. — Ineuw talk 16:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Etiquette would be to start a separate thread on that topic, instead of holding that discussion here. BWC is seeking help on a particular issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Selection is based on assessing the suggestions and discussions at the PotM talk page. If there is no clear "winner", then I've selected the one that I think will appeal to the widest group of contributors. I've also tried to ensure a variety of topics, style and region of origin, based on the interests of our contributors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: EncycloPetey (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

PDF generation issues; do we (temporarily) amend link?

A second report of PDF generation issues has been received. There is another at WS:Scriptorium/Help. I haven't had time to play with the print output to see if we have generated the problem, or it is more underlying in the extension. If we cannot get an immediate solution, then maybe we should be looking to change the link to use wsexport tool, with a reconfigured link. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion display change — right margin

I am looking at some transcluded chapters, eg. Chartism/Chapter 10 and I see that we now have an indented right margin (~90%???) and full formatting rather than left formatting (jagged right edge). Has someone made a local change or have we inherited something along the way? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: do you know where this has occurred? I cannot see local change, and then working out where the formatting occurs is unknown to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps something similar with this left margin which was not on my user's page and appeared recently without my knowing how or why? I've had a similar surprise on the French wikisource too. --Zyephyrus (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

For whatsoever this is worth (probably not much) this "change" in the right margin is most definitely (Java)Script driven rather than a CSS change (load the page with javascript disabled: result renders fine without restriction on right margin.) I think I may have gotten to the bottom of this although I'll leave others to add the reasoning for why the changes were made:

• MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css has specified a right-margin of 3em forever (well since at least May, 2015 which is as far back as I have checked)—per

  body.ns-0 div#regionContainer {
  	position: relative;
  	display: block;
  	box-sizing: border-box;
  	margin-right: 3.00em;
  	margin-left: 3.00em;
  }
  

• MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js has attempted to enable the above since forever but using buggy code which appears to have been "fixed" in this change on 1st January, 2016.

The net result is as observed, at least as far as English wikisource is concerned. AuFCL (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue for me is the header template now is wider than the body component, so when items are centred in both, there is no alignment it looks buggy to my eyes. Does that also explain the fully justified page formatting, rather than the left alignment? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pardon. I understood the "okay with frown" part: I was only reporting the status quo as I observe it: with the expectation it might give the appropriate users the sensitive points at which further change might best be implemented should they (you?) so choose. However I completely fail to understand your comment and thus cannot help further. AuFCL (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)