Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators' noticeboard
This is a discussion page for coordinating and discussing administrative tasks on Wikisource. Although its target audience is administrators, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. This is also the place to report vandalism or request an administrator's help.
  • Please make your comments concise. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
  • This is not the place for general discussion. For that, see the community discussion page.
  • 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 = 2,192,868
No. of articles = 626,649
No. of files = 20,232
No. of edits = 6,971,703

No. of pages in Main = 369,566
No. of pages in Page: = 1,488,387
No. validated in Page: = 333,385
No. proofread in Page: = 439,919
No. not proofread in Page: = 566,819
No. problematic in Page: = 26,791
No. of validated works = 2,633
No. of proofread only works = 1,266
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 159,027
% transcluded pages in Main = 43.03
Σ pages in Main

No. of users = 2,813,793
No. of active users = 291
No. of group:autopatrolled = 442
No. in group:sysop = 33
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 proggress directly of stewards
    • requests for checkuser

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Page (un)protection requests[edit]


Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Transclusion display change — right margin[edit]

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)

Pune Law College Editathon[edit]

Please have a look at the edits of Wikisource:Internship project at New Law College, Pune. The student group engaged on Index:Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.djvu are just playing with the proofreading mechanism and indiscriminately marking the pages as proofread and validated without actually proofreading the pages. I had reverted the status of some pages and messaged on the talk pages of some of them, but they are not listening. So, admins are requested to have a look. Hrishikes (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

For now, I doubt there is much worthwhile we could do. They seem to be making an effort, but have little or no experience with typesetting. Either some of them will improve with time, or we can run a bot later to mark the pages as either "unproofread" or whatever we decide. But as long as their practice is limited to one or a few documents, it isn't a crisis yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
From my looking at one work, the proofreading is fine. The formatting needs work. So I can see value on putting some indicators on the relevant "Index talk:" pages. Marking them as not proofread is a little harsh compared to giving some feedback on things that need attention. One I am working through and as it is not transcluded it is less of a hassle to have it there with the formatting in that state. We are just going to need to give some help. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Availability of user:wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist[edit]

A reminder for admins that where they wish to have the 'system' partially patrol a user's transcription work that they can add a user and their work to user:wikisource-bot/patrol whitelist. I use it where I know that a person is working well on a particular work, or in a particular namespace, though I am not necessarily comfortable that they have yet captured the essence of all namespaces. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: User:ShakespeareFan00 blocked for one week[edit]

User:ShakespeareFan00 asked me to block them for a period of one week so that they can deal with some personal issues, including migraines. I warned them that this was not the best way to deal with these issues, but decided to do what they asked regardless. I want to make sure that it's known that this is all consensual and there is no drama involved, and has nothing to do with recent discussions about this user at WS:S. For reference, the discussion is at User talk:Beleg Tâl#In relation to my account here., and they also posted a notice on their user page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not a good practice. Users need to be responsible to manage their own editing, rather than asking to be forced. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a great practice, but it is done from time to time. BD2412 T 02:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not generally good practice, and that we are personally responsible for our own editing behavior; but I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge that as a community, situations may arise where individuals can extend support that is not necessarily technical. But perhaps the best support we can give in those situations is to encourage seeking outside help if necessary. Back in late 2011, I expressed the thought that perhaps I was developing an addiction with regard to my editing at WS. What was actually occurring was the gradual development of a mental health disorder characterized by manic symptoms &c. It may or may not have been evident to members of this community at the time, but my family was tracking, and got me the help I needed. We do not know everyone's unique situation. We're not really a "share the love" sort of community. But I am wearing reading glasses today as a result of a comment BWC made to me some years back that it might be beneficial for me to visit an optometrist due to some issues I had mentioned I was having at the time. Whether it is headaches, vision problems or seeming addictions, etc., there is ample help out there. We just need to be willing to seek it (and be encouraged to do so)—and not be afraid of or ashamed in doing so. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: started a straw poll at WS:S re-asking about that forums use for RFCs[edit]

Today I have put up a straw poll to the community reviewing our use of Scriptorium for complex discussions / RFCs. I have a feeling that the current approach needs confirmation to continue. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Inapropriate deletion procedures[edit]


i seem to be having a problem with one particular administrator who has decided to unilaterally delete legitimate content, without regard for community procedures, without proper notice, etc.

specifically, i have been working on filling up the bibliography for h.l. mencken, a major 20th century american author, for whom we have pitifully few items @ ws; or more specifically, before i started work on his stuff, WS had exactly one item for him.

for an author whose wp/en article page gets thousands of views per month.

& for whom dozens to hundreds of pre-1923 items exist.

i can't access differ for the content this admin has "disappeared",

but here are the differ for the author's biblio page

thus far, this editor has "disappeared" at least 3 sourced items for this author.

please help?

Lx 121 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

additional -- i find that the user has also taken it upon himself to erase discussion pages

specifically, to "make disappear" useage graphs, among other things.

the deletion "rationale" provided is not supported by fact, reality, or ws policy.

Lx 121 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What are you going on about? Billinghurst hasn't disappeared anything from the author page. In fact he did a useful cleanup job. The "Gamalielise" link he commented out was already linked to from the Columns section. His other changes a) added a link to an external scan for one work b) delinked a redlink, but left its entry and added an external scan to it, as well as other wikification and formatting. BethNaught (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
actually, no -- idk if you have access to deleted or "wiped" items, but if you examine the diffs carefully, you will find the following:
i. user inappropriately deleted the article *"A Short View of Gamalielese" The Nation, April 27, 1921 ; without discussion, or etc.; mis-use of csd
ii. user inappropriately deleted the article *"The American Language" (book review of American English by Gilbert M. Tucker) The Bookman, June, 1921 ; without discussion, or etc.; mis-use of csd
iii. user incorrectly altered the biblio to MIS-IDENTIFY this 2nd article as "about mencken", when all the information clearly stated that the article was a book review WRITTEN BY mencken.


Spamming by bot maybe[edit]

For the past few days, we've had a series of "new users" who immediately create a user page about themselves. In each case, the new page says "Hi I'm X", "I am a / live in Y", and then has a promotional link. These all look suspiciously similar, and I'd be surprised if we were the only project being targeted. Here are some of the user names under which this has happened:

--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Something similar has been happening for a while on the Multilingual Wikisource. @Zyephyrus: Mahir256 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, lots of these patterns have been deleted for years on Never sure whether they are spambots or not but usually they are. --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
These are variants of the ntsamr spambots from a couple of years back. (ntsamr = nothing to say about me really). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I will have a look at them and see if I need to have the spam filters updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Some character spoofing, and some text variations. I have suggested an updated and requested that the global filter be updated. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hostile IP[edit]

In general, Wikisource seems delightfully drama-free. However, a hostile IP editor has recently showed up and is beginning to wreak havoc at my userpage [1], at Translation talk:Genesis [2], at the Translation of Exodus itself [3], and [4].

It is the editor's firm belief that they understand biblical Hebrew intuitively, simply because they (claim that) they speak Modern Hebrew "fluently", and that therefore when they disagree scholarly precedent on some issue, the scholars are all just "idiots" (the editor's words). I would normally start by discussing disagreements with people, but his tone makes that look difficult, and the extreme confidence paired with not knowing the subject makes me less than optimistic.

Do you have any advice for how I should proceed? The editor is mostly wrong when he makes factual claims, and I could try to explain them bit by bit, but what has already happened so far doesn't make me very hopeful.

I am more knowledgeable about Wikipedia norms than I am about Wikisource norms, so please let me know if I accidentally make some of mistake here. Alephb (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Alephb. Thanks for raising the matter. I doubt that there are many of us regular users and administrators that can be much help in the matter of Hebrew translations, especially old Hebrew. We would encourage any discussion to take place on the pertinent talk page, as has been done, though we would hope that it was respectful, and parts of the current discourse do not seem to be. For the content discussions, all I can suggest is seek another opinion to the conversation, and approach a consensus. That may be a ping to heWS to see if someone would like to comment.

For the user themself, we can ask them to be respectful, which is our WS norm, and if they are unable to have that consideration, then we can take administrative action, though that is the last resort and down the track. We generally don't have heated disputes here, as the interaction of our work is less inclined to such circumstance. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hiuser:billinghurst. heWS might be handy, although in this case the problem isn't ability to understand modern Hebrew, but knowledge of biblical Hebrew. If we arrive at an impass, would it be appropriate to place a note up at, say, w:WP:BIBLE or w:WP:JUDAISM asking for someone with some knowledge of biblical Hebrew to chime in? Or is Wikisource its own separate kingdom? Alephb (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
We are not an island, we are all part of WMF, and as such we operate on consensus for something like a translation. We try maintain an open mind. So my suggestion is if we cannot achieve the knowledge with local resources, we drop the pebble into other ponds to put out ripples there. I don't mind where you ask for comment to find the relevant knowledge, all is welcome here; we hope that it is undertaken respectfully, and if it involves discussion that talk pages are used. For our translation namespace, we haven't developed a methodology to capture difference of opinion in a translation, and it is something that we should consider. That said, we are not purporting to be an academic site, we are a site where translations can be made of public domain, non-English works that are not available in English. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance. So far on the Bible project, the approach has been to use footnotes at places where the text is unclear. I'll see how things go and go from there. Alephb (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I arrive here from a request at w:WT:JUDAISM. For the moment I'm not going to get directly involved in this whole fight. (FWIW, I think Alephb is probably mostly in the right content-wise. I couldn't yet say whether or not the IP occasionally has a point from a content perspective, but a contrary point of view is hardly "stupid".) That said, I'm kind of appalled at the disrespectful, uncivil behavior on the part of the IP. I don't think anyone should have to fight through that while dealing with content disputes. On wikis where I am a sysop I would have warned (and lacking a change, blocked) on behavioral grounds long ago. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@StevenJ81: I would have an expectation that a user upset with their treatment would be the first to express the dissatisfaction to the user. It simply doesn't need the intervention of an admin at that first point. If we have a continued aspect of problematic behaviour then I can see that an intervention could be required, though a one-off set of edits from an IP address (no prior history, no post history) should be managed as solely that. If it continues and at the same IP address then there is means to address such. We also do not have a history of appalling behaviour and we have not had an issue calling out such behaviour where it does exist.

Administrators are simply users with extra tools, community standards come from the community and start with the users themselves. Administrators are not the first level of problem solving, of issue resolution, nor here to conduct punishment. In this situation my view and approach may be different if I saw a regular member of the community beating up on a newbie.

Apart from that, I think that you need to timeline the commentary here with the edits elsewhere, first raised we had one edit on a user page (hardly wreaking havoc) and a small series of edits on one day from an IP. Alephb has not made comment to the user about their approach, and no-one else is particularly working in that area. Yes we need to watch it, and any member of this community is able to make comment to the IP address that it is not how we conduct conversations around here. Umm, long ago??? There I think that you can dismount your high horse, I doubt that aligns with the reality of the situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

By "long ago", @StevenJ81: may be referring to the fact that the IP has been around in the past, under other IP numbers, being uncivil as early as 2010. The IP was gone for a while and recently reappeared. The fact that the IP had been here for years was in the diffs, with the IP themselves claiming responsibility for edits stretching back several years, but perhaps I should have been more explicit about it. My phrasing "recently arrived" was unfortunate -- I should have said "recently reappeared." Anyhow, I posted here not to ask for a ban or anything, but just to ask in an open-ended way for advice because I was aware that Wikisource operated a bit differently from other Wikis. In particular, I came here because I know the Wikisource community was very small, appeared less bureaucratic than Wikipedia, and I figured I could get pointers from people who'd been around here longer and had some experience here. I got pointers, I learned what the appropriate next steps were in terms of Wikisource, and I've started taking them. If this was an inappropriate venue, I apologize.
And in particular, if it was my cloudy communication that got StevenJ81 accused of being "on a high horse," my apologies for that as well. Alephb (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
As for "wreaking havoc," that's probably a phrase I should not have used with the general public. If I used it with anybody who had any significant training in ancient Hebrew, it would have instantly made sense. The angry tone is combined with a serious level of confusion about the subjects involved, to the extent that "wreaking havoc" would probably have made sense in Hebrew-educated company, but would not be obvious to others. Alephb (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: I don't see that you have any for which to apologise, I saw you coming here seeking guidance, and I thought it was given, and this is a little more likely to get experienced perspective than our VP equivalent. I have no issue with your requests, nor your approach, it seems quite mature and reasonable in the circumstance. The extended explanation and clarification does put a different perspective on the first set of statements, and may have slightly changed the advice, but not excessively. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)