Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 4,380,221
No. of articles = 1,059,738
No. of files = 16,223
No. of edits = 14,366,063

---

No. of pages in Main = 614,667
No. of pages in Page: = 3,279,696
No. validated in Page: = 649,707
No. proofread in Page: = 1,270,202
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,063,634
No. problematic in Page: = 45,365
No. of validated works = 6,479
No. of proofread only works = 6,430
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 405,250
% transcluded pages in Main = 65.93
Σ pages in Main

---

No. of users = 3,135,588
No. of active users = 384
No. of group:autopatrolled = 501
No. in group:sysop = 23
No. in group:bureaucrat = 2
No. in group:bot = 17

Statistics
User preference statistics
Special:Statistics

Checkuser requests

• Wikisource:checkuser policy
• At this point of time, English Wikisource has no checkusers and requests need to be undertaken by stewards
  • it would be expected that requests on authentic users would be discussed on this wiki prior to progressing to stewards
  • requests by administrators for identification and blocking of IP ranges to manage spambots and longer term nuisance-only editing can be progressed directly to the stewards
  • requests for checkuser

CopyrightProfanity/KidsAreVeryCool/BetThisWillWork=

• CopyrightProfanity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
• KidsAreVeryCool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)
• BetThisWillWork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL)

As noted at #Permanently blocked user:CopyrightProfanity we have a little vandal, who is presumably an LTA when looking at the editing. Quietly repeating the same edits from different accounts, and not wishing to communicate beyond the vulgarity of their revision text. Lodging a request at m:SRCU — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests

• To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

Request for interface admin rights renewal

• @Hesperian:, @Mpaa: my interface admin rights expired today. Could they be renewed please? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Mpaa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Other

Resource Loader issue needs outside guidance

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...

MediaWiki:Common.js called MediaWiki:Base.js calls MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js calls MediaWiki:IndexForm.js called MediaWiki:OCR.js calls MediaWiki:DisplayFooter.js called MediaWiki:Dictionary.js called MediaWiki:Corrections.js calls MediaWiki:InterWikiTransclusion.js called MediaWiki:Common.js/IEFixes.js called MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js and a few others I can't recall

MediaWiki:Common.css called MediaWiki:Common.css/Boxes.css called MediaWiki:Common.css/Lists.css called MediaWiki:Common.css/Mainpage.css called MediaWiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css and a few others I can't recall

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....

MediaWiki:Common.js calls MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js calls MediaWiki:IndexForm.js calls MediaWiki:DisplayFooter.js calls MediaWiki:InterWikiTransclusion.js MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.js calls MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js calls MediaWiki:InterProject.js

MediaWiki:Common.css calls MediaWiki:Coltest.css calls MediaWiki:Dynimg.css MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css calls MediaWiki:Gadget-enwp-boxes.css calls MediaWiki:Gadget-enwp-lists.css calls MediaWiki:Gadget-enws-mainpage.css calls MediaWiki:Gadget-enws-tweaks.css and a few others basically still being tested

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

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

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

Interface administrators

Hi. Please see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Unisfu5m161hs4zl. I do not remember if this was already discussed and how it is going to be addressed. Comments and suggestions welcome.  Comment As far as I am concerned I would trust any admin who feels skilled and confident enough to tackle such edits.— Mpaa (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I can handle the technical aspects of it. However, it can take me a while to get around to tasks that take longer than a few minutes, so I don't want to create a false expectation of being able to handle time sensitive matters on my own. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We should decide how to address the fact that EnWS has no m:interface administrators. I see basically the following options. Please add/amend as you feel appropriate.

Option A - Assign right on demand when needed

Option B - Assign right permanently to willing Admins, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

As I said above, I am for the simplest one.— Mpaa (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Option C - Assign right permanently to selected Admins, after approval process, to be reviewed in the confirmation process

Option C sounds like you're being volunteered (based on the lack of the word 'willing'). ;) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Option D - assign the rights to all the admins, who have already been vetted for community approval, and then whoever has the ability and desire can make use of it as they will and as needed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Option D would make the most sense for us. For anyone to get themselves to the point that we trust them with the admin tools just so that they can mess around in the interface, they would be playing a very long game. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Beeswaxcandle, Option D, although I would also be fine with the right only going to admins who express an interest. BD2412 T 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It is so rare I disagree with Beeswaxcandle but this must be one of those times. The whole point of this change is to prevent the ignorant from accidentally screwing up - insulting as the implications undoubtedly are! As such under the new regime trust is no longer enough; perhaps somebody ought to draw up some kind of eligibility examination…? 114.73.248.245 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That hasn't been an issue for us yet, and accidental changes are easily reversed. If we had more users it would be more of a problem, but as it stands this kind of distinction is more cumbersome than helpful in my opinion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

As much as I like the idea of making all existing admin interface admin, IA were separated from regular adminship specifically to reduce attack surface(from hackers), and it was pretty dangerous if the access fell into the wrong hand, I'd rather propose having existing admin request right from bureaucrat and could be granted at the bureaucrat's discretion, and should be automatically removed if no action after two month.Viztor (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment we discussed it when the rights were split, and it was agreed that it could be assigned on a needs basis. That has been done at least once for me with the temporary assignation of the IA rights. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Note that WMF Legal requires 2FA to be enabled for users who are to be assigned this right, so bureaucrats will have to verify this before doing so. MediaWiki's 2FA implementation is also sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the 2FA implementation? I haven't had any issues with it at all. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, sorry, I should have been more clear. I am going on hearsay, mostly from admins on enwp (a crotchety bunch if ever there was one), and my own assessment of the documentation at meta. The main complaints are that the implementation in general is a little bit primitive (as is to be expected since WMF rolled their own instead of federating with one of the big providers), and that there is no way to regain access to your account if something goes wrong with the 2FA stuff (if your phone is stolen etc.) unless you happen to know one of the developers personally. None of these are in themselves showstoppers, and many people are using it entirely without issue. The phrasing sufficiently finicky that one may not want to enable it without proper consideration was not intended to discourage use, but merely to suggest that it is worthwhile actually giving it a little thought before requesting it be turned on. --Xover (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, gotcha. As it happens, Wikimedia 2FA does include emergency access codes for use when your phone is unavailable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal requirements related to 2FA

Picking up this again…

I finally got so annoyed by our inability to fix even simple stuff stuff that requires Interface Admin permissions that I hopped over to meta to figure out what the actual requirements are (versus the should stuff). As it turns out, the 2FA stuff is (surprise surprise) as half-baked as most such Papal bulls from the WMF: 2FA is required for intadmin, but there is no way for bureaucrats to actually check whether an account has that enabled. The result of this is that even on enwp (where they take this stuff really seriously) they do not actually try to verify that 2FA is enabled before they hand the permission out: they check that the user is in the right group so that they can turn on 2FA, remind the person in question of the requirement, but otherwise take it on faith (trust). There's a request in for the technical capability to verify 2FA (and I think Danny is even working on it), but it seems mostly everyone's waiting for 2FA to be enforced by the software.

Meanwhile, anyone with existing advanced permissions (i.e. +sysop) have the capability to enable 2FA, and anyone with a particular reason (e.g. that they need it to get Interface Administrator permission) can apply to be a "2FA Tester" and thus gain the ability to turn it on.

The net result is that our bureaucrats (ping Hesperian and Mpaa) can assign this permission so long as we somehow somewhere make at least a token effort to make sure those getting the bit have 2FA enabled. Whether that's an addition to, or footnote on, Wikisource:Adminship, or the bureaucrats asking/reminding the user when it comes up, or… whatever… I have no particular opinion on. Since the previous community discussions have been actively adverse to regulating this stuff in detail, and absent objections, I think "Whatever Hesperian and Mpaa agree on" is a reasonable enough summary of consensus.

I still think we should have an actual policy for Interface Administrators (or section on it in Wikisource:Adminship) and some facility for permanently assigning the permission (ala. +sysop; but intadmin tasks are not one-and-done like +sysop tasks, they often require iterative changes over time and need to fit into a overall architecture), but so long as there is no appetite for that, something that we can point to and say "That's how we handle the 2FA requirement" if the WMF should ever come asking. --Xover (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Judicious cleaning required from Special:UnusedFiles

I was just poking my head into Special:UnusedFiles. There are a significant number of images that utilise {{raw page scan}} that should be checked and if truly unused, we can delete as the file has been transwiki'd to Commons. And I note that always physically check their usage as I have previously seen that the NOT USED assessment is not always accurate.

Checking and deleting process:

• Use the Page:… link
• At Page:… check that there is a Commons loaded image in place (and no use of template:raw image)
• grab the new filename
• click back to the local image, delete the image, noting "File transwiki'd" and paste in the new filename (preferred not mandatory)

If admins could do 10 to 20 a session, we should get through them in a month or so. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment TIP: when doing the image check you can even take the time to validate proofread page with the image (very often sittin gin proofread status). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Considering the list is maxed out at 5k, so there's no telling how many more of them there are (we have over 20k files tagged as raw page scans, possibly more that are untagged), it's highly unlikely we'll get through that in a month. But it's certainly something we need to start chipping away at.

And we should possibly even start considering more drastic measures, like periodically bot-deleting anything in Category:Raw page scans for missing images that isn't used anywhere (including inbound links). The manual processing is tedious and time-consuming, and provides very little additional value compared to an automated approach (linking to the replacement image in the deletion log, mostly, and that has marginal value at best). We'd need to check closely whether the category contains files that could be caught as false positives in such a run, but barring such pitfalls automation may be both the best option and the only realistic way to ever clear out this backlog (we have plenty of other image-related backlogs where human attention is necessary).

Oh, PS, DannyS712 has a neat user script at User:DannyS712/Change status.js that makes cases such as this a lot quicker. I'm not sure they consider it ready for prime-time (I don't think it's been advertised anywhere), so caveat emptor, but I've been using it a good bit today and seen no problems. To use, add importScript('User:DannyS712/Change status.js'); to your common.js. --Xover (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to use the script, it adds a link to the function (next to the "move" function) that will, if the page is "not proofread" or "problematic", mark it as "proofread". If it is already "proofread", and the user can mark it as validated, it marks it as validated instead. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I agree with @Xover: that this kind of tasks should be automated.Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment At this point I would think that the task is to start to chip away. I don't see that there is urgency in cleaning this space, so as long as we start. So what if it takes three months, heck I have works that I dip in and out of for years. As I said I have seen multiple issues of the tool being wrong in the past, if we can demonstrate that this is no longer the issue, then maybe we can look to bot removal. I though the admin review, and process of validating was beneficial.

P.S. Those quiescent admins, and those who find it hard to identify tasks to undertake are given a gift here! — billinghurst sDrewth 22:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Having done about a hundred of these by hand… I'd say the realistic best case sustained rate here is something like 5 admins doing 5 files per day for 5 days a week. That's an aggregate rate of about 500 per month. If the number is 5k that means 10 months to get through it. If the number is 20k that's 40 months, or just shy of 3.5 years. I don't have sufficient data for an accurate estimate of net time, but assuming a range of 30-60 seconds per file, at 5k files that's an aggregate ~40–80 net admin-hours expended. At 20k files that's ~160–320 net admin hours. Assuming an 8 hour work day, that's one dedicated admin working flat out only on this for between one week (5k/30s) and 2 months (20k/60s). With no lunch break, by the way. That's a pretty high cost.

On the upside we have tagging the logs for deleted files with a link to the replacement images. But that only matters if you're actually looking at the deleted file, and for these raw page scans that is essentially never going to happen. Having a human in the loop also helps guard against Mediawiki bugs in categorising etc., but while, yes, that does happen, it's been years since I've run into that kind of bug anywhere that would matter here. What usually happens is that counts and references fail to update properly when pages are deleted, so you get categories saying they have members, but in reality the relevant items have already been deleted; and these eventually get cleared out by periodic maintenance tasks.

In other words, doing this manually is expensive and with a significant opportunity cost, and without a concomitant value. Automating it obviously carries risks (automatically deleting up to 5-20k files should never be done lightly). But with appropriate checks—for example, all files listed on Special:UnusedFiles who are also in category Raw page scans and who have no incoming links in WhatLinksHere—manual spot checks, and going in batches… the risk should be eminently manageable. --Xover (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I can work out shortly a script that can scan category Raw page scans and checks for the conditions for deletion (and in case deletes). If you are OK to test small batches, let me know.Mpaa (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Can you have it run up a list of files and dump it in a sandbox somewhere so we can spot check the logic? Maybe a hundred or so files that the script thinks should be deleted, and, if relevant, the ones it thinks shouldn't be. Better to find any holes in the logic before we start deleting stuff. --Xover (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Here: res sandbox.Mpaa (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Excellent! I've spot-checked pages from most of the works represented in that list and found none incorrect. I'd have no objection to running that (in batches so it can be checked; there're bound to be some pathological edge-case out there somewhere). --Xover (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: I have done a small test batch of 45 pages as Mpaa.Mpaa (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mpaa: Ok, I've spot-checked 2–3 files from each work in those 45, and find no real problems. The only issue I see is that the deletion log for File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-453.png links to c:File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu instead of c:File:A Book of the West - ALMS HOUSES, S GERMANS.png; and ditto for File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu-223.png that points to c:File:A book of the west; being an introduction to Devon and Cornwall.djvu instead of c:File:A Book of the West - LAKEHEAD, KISTVAEN.png. --Xover (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Thanks, I fixed it, I ran another ~40 pages.Mpaa (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can set up a scrolling gallery that does nothing but compare our page image side-by-side with the comparable Commons file. An editor could scroll through and eyeball any differences fairly quickly. BD2412 T 22:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Poking at this again…

I found no problems with Mpaa's test bot run, and we still have potentially ~20k files sitting there that it would be a waste of admin resources to process manually. Can we pull the trigger on a mass delete of these? If not, what are the concerns? --Xover (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I ran about 15 pages to check that everything is still OK. Mpaa (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Watch out for files unacceptable on Commons, especially if still copyright-restricted at home.--Jusjih (talk) 05:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Title blacklist updated to prevent invisible characters in page names

Based on this discussion I have added rules to the title blacklist to prevent the creation of pages with invisible Unicode characters in the name. Users hitting this rule should see the custom error message at MediaWiki:titleblacklist-invisible-characters-edit. --Xover (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Should the “Emojis, etc. Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles” section be there? First, it’s clear that MediaWiki:titleblacklist-invisible-characters-edit is not an helpful message in that case. Secondly, there seems like some quite useful characters there; the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols is basically just so we can include mathematical titles in a plain text format. As for the rest of them, if we allow Chinese, we should allow all of Chinese; if we do enough academic work, we’re going to have Hieroglyphics and ancient Chinese in article titles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: In page names? Where we recently had community consensus to not even permit curly quotes (as part of the discussion to permit them in page content) because that’d be too fiddly? In any case, both the error message and the rules can be tweaked if needed. The current rules are an attempt to prevent stuff like WORD JOINER and friends that are invisible and cause issues for people trying to work with such pages. I (currently) have no particularly strong opinions on the issue above a vague inclination towards limiting page names to roughly ASCII (on enWS, of course, other language projects have different needs). --Xover (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

What’s magical about page names? Page names need to match the names of the works they contain. Curly quotes are a special case; note that there was no restriction on character in pages, except for curly quotes. If an article title is "Čapek’s works in English” or “Injections from 𝕎 to 𝕁", then why should the page name be any different?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Page names have technical and practical concerns (peoples' ability to enter them, display, them, search for them, etc.) that means we should constrain them in some fashions; and at the same time we already do stuff like drop “The” from page titles to facilitate automatic sorting (which I actually disagree with, but that’s neither here nor there). The characters we disallow in the current rules are also exceedingly rare in practice, and the blacklist can be overridden by any admin at need, so I don’t think it is a problem we should expend too much effort on until and unless we start seeing actual cases where it causes problems.

Č (U+010D: LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CARON), is in the Latin Extended-A block which is a part of the Basic Multilingual Plane which the current ruleset lets through. 𝕎 (U+1D54E: MATHEMATICAL DOUBLE-STRUCK CAPITAL W) and 𝕁 (U+1D541: … J) are part of the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block of the Supplementary Multilingual Plane (most common mathematical symbols are in the BMP; these are essentially font variations: bold, italic, fractur, etc.) that contains all the exotic and ancient stuff (Linear B, Coptic, Hieroglyphs, etc.) plus a good chunk of Emoji, so they would be disallowed by the current rules but we can whitelist ranges if we discover that we need them.

That all being said, I am by no means married to the current rules so whatever is the consensus is is fine by me; and I would, of course, be happy to help implement whatever that consensus is if needed. Most of the examples you mention above (the extended maths stuff, hieroglyphics, etc.) are contained in distinct blocks (Emoji aren’t, and I believe Chinese is also split up in inconvenient ways when you want to handle everything, but most of the rest) that should be relatively straightforward to whitelist. --Xover (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "it is {not} a problem we should expend too much effort on until and unless we start seeing actual cases where it causes problems." I think that we should remove the restriction; it is easy to deal with a few poorly named or spammish pages on patrol, and bad to frustrate innocent users with a misleading and likely irrelevant error message.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject NLS

A large number of indexes in this hidden category are being marked as “validated,” even though some pages have not been validated. I have fixed some of them, although it appears there are many more that still have this problem. It would be more helpful for an administrator to notify the editors involved. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I'm not sure this is something that particularly requires an administrator, but…

I took a look at the first ten indexes in this Petscan search (intersection of indexes that are in Category:WikiProject NLS and Category:Index Validated) and of these 7 had one or two pages marked as "Problematic" due to a missing image, but were otherwise all Validated. Most of the indexes were marked as validated by Kathleen.wright5, and one by Annalang13 at the NLS.

Kathleen: I'm not sure I see the reasoning behind marking these as Validated. Could you elaborate?

Courtesy ping and a question to @Gweduni: is this part of the workflow you had sketched out with Beeswaxcandle? And what are your plans for these images? --Xover (talk) 04:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought that it should receive the attention of an administrator, at least. The indexes I found and fixed, perhaps 60 or so, were just those which were recently added to Category:Index Validated. I fear this may be similar to the problem with the Indonesian Wikisource works, where the editors involved are not proofreading/validating a page to the standards required on Wikisource. The main reason I mentioned this here was so that an administrator could correct these changes, and notify the editors who made the mistakes—it would be more appropriate for an administrator to do such, rather than a normal editor such as myself. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC).

we never discussed the image element as part of the original workflow - my understanding was that we could validate and transclude without including the images - it wasn't brought up so I suppose we assumed it was not a critical part of the process and more of a nice extra (we don't have any resource to add these in retrosepctively, so not sure what the best approach is now) Gweduni (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gweduni: Individual pages can be progressed through Proofread to Validated independently, and works can be transcluded before they are complete, but the work as a whole (through the status on the Index: page) should not be marked as Validated until all its component pages have been Validated. That in particular goes for pages marked Problematic due to missing images. And there are several reasons for this, but perhaps most apposite here is that when marked as fully validated the work disappears from maintenance backlogs so there is little chance they will ever get finished, much less in a systematic way. --Xover (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xover: OK, so for now we can keep going as we are as long as we don't set the status on the index page to Validated (for the work as a whole)? Gweduni (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gweduni: Without going into nuances or the inevitable exceptions… In principle the Progress field of an Index: should not be set to "To be validated" until all its Page: pages have been Proofread, and it should not be set to "Done" until all pages are Validated. But the most critical part is that the Index: isn't marked as "Done" until the work is actually finished. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Also some works like Index:Story teller (4).pdf are marked validated, but not all the pages are validated, and the contents page probably isn't even at proofread level, despite being marked so. It's OK if works don't get validated, they can still be "complete" and marked "proofread". It's less ideal if incomplete works are marked validated without actually being validated. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

not sure what is wrong with the contents page above? Gweduni (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gweduni: At the time Inductiveload posted the above, the page in question looked like this. --Xover (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

ah, can see the problem - will feed back to the team Gweduni (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see from the discussion above this work shouldn't be marked as 'Done' anyway due to the 'Missing Image', but just wanted to apologise for this slightly different issue, this one's my fault. I marked the work as 'Done' while I was editing the index to create the main-page transclusion link, as I wanted to check how things would look when transcluded, and to make sure the sub-page links on the contents page were correct. I didn't realise it would cause a problem and look like these pages hadn't been worked on, sorry, won't do it again! --Annalang13 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Annalang13: There's no real harm done, as long as the pages get done eventually (and that is certainly not a criticism anyone can level at NLS, the amount of completed work is, as they say, uh-may-zing). It's just in general, a "proofread" page that's not actually proofread may well loiter in that state for years or practically forever, and not even show in the immense backlog of pages that need proofreading.

FYI, there's no technical requirement for an Index to be "done", or for individual pages to be "proofread" to be able to transclude to mainspace. The "rules", such as they are, say pages that aren't "proofread" or above shouldn't generally be transcluded, but that is a process thing and not for any technical reason: they're still just pages. A not "proofread" page generally consists of raw OCR or is otherwise not presentable in mainspace, but that's not always true. There are times it's fine to transclude a "not proofread" or "problematic" page, for example if something is just missing and there's no alternative source, or if only one article on a page is proofread. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Time to prune the bot accounts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request move

Hello. Could you please move "Siamese Interim Administrative Charter Act, Buddhist Era 2475 (1932)" to "Translation:Act on Interim Charter for Public Administration of Siam, 2475 Buddhist Era" and change its namespace from "main" to "translation"? Thank you so much. --KhaoNiaoMaMuang (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done The above has been moved. Wikidata item needs to be moved. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kathleen.wright5: The WD items should be updated when you do the moves, or very quickly afterwards. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in working on this particular backlog, there are about 80+ works (mostly Thai legal documents) that need to be moved from Mainspace to Translation space. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If someone can map out the required conversions from {{header}} to {{translation header}} then I can run through them. Just too busy to do all the thinking of the conversions. Would be wanting indications of which lines add/remove/change, to make the bot tasking easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Most of them are obvious - title=<title>, author=<author>, etc. The interwiki link [[th:<pagetitle>]] gives you the values for language=th and original=<pagetitle>. If shortcut and/or year are omitted, they need to be added as blank parameters. Finally, any instance of override_translator = [[Wikisource:Translations|Wikisource]] needs to be removed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Hi. Lately I have been less involved in Wikisource due to RL, so I would like to resign from my bureaucrat role. As next confirmation would be in March, I am giving this heads-up to the community so there is time to look for a candidate. Thanks Mpaa (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

How much bureacratship is there to do on this project? I've been a 'crat on Wikiquote since 2011 (where there is an adminship request once in a blue moon), and would be willing to pick up the role here as well if needed. BD2412 T 03:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the volume of work is all that large (don't underestimate the amount of work Hesperian and Mpaa have been doing, keeping WS:AN running etc., though!), but the tasks there are are rather critical and when you need a `crat you really need a `crat. Having more `crats means a better chance that one is available when a need arises. If you're willing to take it on that would be very welcome news! --Xover (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It takes a 'crat to declare the outcomes of the monthly evaluations. BD2412 T 17:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Credits to Hesperian, I have mostly been in 'warm standby' config mode, now in cold ... :-) Mpaa (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your service Mpaa; I'll make a note to resign you as 'crat at your March confirmation. Please let us know if you change your mind in the interim.

I too am very busy IRL these days, and my engagement with Wikisource is not what it was. I've mostly stayed on top of monthly confirmations, but I'm not really following community discussions, nor even thinking about other 'crat admin stuff like bot and interface rights.

I'm happy to continue as 'crat for now; but there is definitely a risk for the community in only having a single 'crat who is not very engaged. I highly recommend the community at least elect a replacement for Mpaa... if not multiple new 'crats so that you can stand me down.

Hesperian 03:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Haterpull

Please block Haterpull - see Special:Contributions/Haterpull --DannyS712 (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Done and reverted edits. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Need some sort of template for constitutions and other iterative works

It is my opinion that we need to template tag those government works that have histories of versions as well-meaning editors keep updating existing versions rather than adding completely new versions. And it would be fair to say that we somewhat bury the fact that our documents are static versions rather than dynamic. I think that we should develop an elegant template that we can apply to these types of iterative works that clearly says that the presented work is a static version, and clearly states which static version. Any takers? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• The Constitution of India page, along with its subpages, as it stands now, is a dynamic document, not static. The whole piece is an updated document, done by Wikisource editors. Updated published versions, published by the Government of India, are not enactments in the updated form, therefore have Govt copyright for 60 years. The version here is Wikisource creation. Accordingly, this should not be declared as a static version by placing a template overhead. Instead, deletion may be considered, as out-of-scope. Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  I would think that we may be better to generate a static version of India's constitution, at least one from sometime and timestamp it. How we go about other version is a different issue, and the matter in itself is one worthy of debate for {{PD-GovEdict}}. Other than that, how did we seemingly knowingly get caught in hosting a dynamic document and not set this straight earlier? Such is outside of the principles of this place, let alone the policy, and we should be holding tight to our principles. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The original hand-written version is present here: The Constitution of India (Original Calligraphed and Illuminated Version). Original printed version may be proofread from Index:The Constitution of India 1949 (Gazette Notification Version).djvu. Amendments may be proofread from Index:Amendments to the Constitution of India.pdf. As for the EdictGov debate, it is ongoing at Wikisource:Copyright discussions#Index:Constitution of India, As on 09 September 2020.pdf, where you are welcome to participate with your POV. As for how the dynamic version is being hosted; it has been present from before my time here, so you would be better placed for shedding light on how it got hosted. Hrishikes (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sumjith Jancy Sunny (talk • contribs)

Apparent spamverter (re: COVID-19 promos), already warned by this filing contributor. --Slgrandson (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slgrandson: Done, thanks for the report and warning. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Gadget development: mobile view gadget from enWP

@Inductiveload: can you check the gadget that I have added (calls enWP's gadget) that enables mobile view and see if it suitably portrays works per Help:Preparing for export so to assist in things to be listed at Category:Ready for export. Thanks if you can. NOTING it only shows for those using the Vector skin. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: it seems to work OK for me - it's a little more convenient that the browser mobile mode as you don't have to change skin too. I'll add to the Help:Preparing for export instructions. Thanks. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

System message: MediaWiki:Citethispage-content

I recommend to replace two occurrences

 wiki:xxx

by

 enwikisource:{{REVISIONID}}

Rationale:

• That code wiki:xxx is a unique identifier within the TeX document.
• Writers are forced to edit this ID manually if they subsequently quote wiki pages and they have to invent a different ID each time.
• By DB name and version ID a globally unique ID will be created now.
• English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia made this change recently.
• It is even possible to derive the permalink URL from that ID.

Greetings --PerfektesChaos (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Done @PerfektesChaos: We haven't tended to fuss over them as they don't work well with our transcluded works which can change in the proofreading in the underlying pages though no change at the version level but that is a different story. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Toggled layouts work footer width differences between monobook and vector

When I look at main ns pages in toggle layouts in monobook skin the work footer is full width to match the work header. When I look at the same page in vector the footer is the width of the text, not the width of the page. Could someone skilled in CSS have a look and see if we can get the work footer to match the work header in its displays.

Presumably those who use vector haven't noticed the difference the other way. The plan for the bottom footer was always to be match the width of the work header, and it would be good if we could fix it.

Can I ask at this point does anyone actually use or like Layout 3? To me it hides so much metadata about the work that I find it deleterious and lacking usefulness. Gut feel is that we should retire it. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I do use the three layouts: it depends on what I am doing with the text and what kind of text it is. --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The footer is added by a javascript, generated from the values in the header. That javascript mostly runs after the pagenumbers/dynamic layout script, so the fix there that hoists the header and license templates etc. out of the dynamic layouts is never applied to the footer. IOW it's not a CSS fix, but it's probably a fairly straightforward fix in the javascript: it just needs to add the footer outside the dynamic layout container (.before('#catlinks') instead of .after'(printfooter'), probably). I'll take a look when time allows if nobody beats me to it (it'll need someone with interface admin rights to implement in any case). --Xover (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: In MediaWiki:Gadget-PageNumbers-core.js, $exempt_hdr and $exempt_ftr are swapped (_hdr is the footer stuff and _ftr is the header stuff). Once swapped, $exempt_ftr needs an additional .append($('#footertemplate')). And for belt and suspenders purposes, we could possibly also add a .dynlayout-exempt to div#footertemplate in MediaWiki:Gadget-DisplayFooter.js to avoid it getting shoved in there to begin with. --Xover (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Xover: Done. Something's not quite right because the footer is still not in the Dynamic Layout exempt footer, but it's better than it was. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

👍 thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Permanently blocked user:CopyrightProfanity

Hi to all. This user has taken a forthright stance to editing outside of the community guidelines of editing to a source and with a stance that I would categorise as disruptive editing. I have tried to engage in conversation with the user about our policies, and guidance, and been preemptively dismissed. I cannot see how we can get a valuable contributor for someone who just wishes to do as they please without regard to our editing to a source. Beeswaxcandle previously blocked the user, as I did subsequently while trying to converse, to no success, and afterwards the same edits being made again. I have now permanently blocked the user, and leave that review to the community as we have not tended to block valid users permanently. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note: The user in question has requested to be unblocked, and I have declined the request. --Xover (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• I endorse this. From their first interactions on, it was apparent that the blocked editor was not here to build a properly sourced collection. BD2412 T 15:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment They came back as KidsAreVeryCool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL). I have just blocked it. I am also somewhat comfortable that it is an LTA, and if they come back again then I will look to take it for CU investigation at meta:SRCU. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment and now as BetThisWillWork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log · SUL) I will lodge a CU request, and add the paperwork above. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

YouTube hyper-links

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

@TE(æ)A,ea.: you want them white-listed, right? Can you make a list in the format:

youtube\.com/watch\?v=[:ID1]
youtube\.com/watch\?v=[:ID2]
....

And I'll whitelist them. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Here’s a list:

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

• I have removed listed duplicates. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

• @TE(æ)A,ea.: I have suspended the domain on the blacklist, please add them into place, and come back here when they are done. I think that we may be able to design a sneakaround, let me think it through. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Billinghurst: One option is to deny adding links to non-autoconfirmed (with or without an edit count requirement) users via the AbuseFilter, rather than the spam blacklist, which is a blunt instrument. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, though we can just play with the order of the url rather thanyoutube.com/watch?v=cufftGM8040&feature=emb_logo we have youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_logo&v=cufftGM8040 and the blacklist becomes youtube\.com/watch?\v= — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What about the ones without the feature=emb_logo junk? And changing the text to circumvent a blacklist we actually have control over seems sub-optimal? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• billinghurst: I have added in the hyper-links to the text. I agree that an autoconfirmed/edit-count abuse filter would be preferable to the many trips here to ask for whitelisting/partial disabling. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

Protected edit requests

There are 2 dated requests for edit protection at Category:Wikisource protected edit requests. I do not understand the templates very much, so can somebody more capable of considering it have a look at it, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Thanks for the headsup. Both edit requests had already been actioned, it was just the request template that hadn't been updated yet. --Xover (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)