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.
Report abuse of editing privileges: Admin noticeboard | Open proxies
Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 1,763,861
No. of articles = 770,367
No. of files = 13,440
No. of edits = 5,591,895


No. of pages in Main = 322,948
No. of pages in Page: = 1,141,457
No. validated in Page: = 213,696
No. proofread in Page: = 323,993
No. not proofread in Page: = 500,377
No. problematic in Page: = 19,688
No. of validated works = 1,786
No. of proofread only works = 976
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 111,286
% transcluded pages in Main = 34.46
Σ pages in Main 


No. of users = 2,328,187
No. of active users = 327
No. of group:autopatrolled = 411
No. in group:sysop = 36
No. in group:bureaucrat = 3
No. in group:bot = 25

Checkuser notification[edit]


Log[edit]

Users Results
172.56.0.0/16 xwiki lta - related history: w:User:Meters/marciano spammer -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrat requests[edit]

Local renaming will no longer be possible from 1 September 2014. To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Hesperian 00:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Htonl resignation[edit]

Can someone close the Htonl admin re-confirmation discussion in accordance with Htonl's resignation from the position? Cheers! BD2412 T 19:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Page (un)protection requests[edit]

Other[edit]

Falkland Islands disputes permeating into Wikisource[edit]

Author:David_Jewett page history

Hello, I apologize for bringing this to your attention but it's spiraling out of control: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Wee Curry Monster is well known in English Wikipedia for getting involved in arguments/edit wars on the topics of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, having been banned on both of them on separate occasions.[8] (I can't link to the Gibraltar incident because of w:WP:OUTING concerns) I fear that these controversies are now being pushed into Wikisource, or at least on the topic of the Falkland Islands, which is the one I'm interested in.

Wee Curry Monster is determined to somehow include the accusations of piracy here too, to damage Jewett's image. He first tried to straightly list pirate as one of his occupations, even if no reliable, secondary source says that (and I stress secondary, because some of his contemporary enemies did called in him "pirate" back in the time). He couldn't do that because he found that other editor agreed with me, so he moved goalposts and brought here the full lede[9] that, conveniently, doesn't talk about the possession ceremony but it does include those comments on alleged piracy.

Template:Author/doc suggest that the description should be short and focused on the author's works. The declaration of possession, conveniently avoided in current description, is what all his published letters are about: without the claim laid on the islands, we wouldn't have his letters in Wikisource. As expected, current author description turns out being even longer that those of Marcel Proust, Edgar Allan Poe or Wolfgang von Goethe.

What are the options here? Should I keep on reverting him? WCM has already been warned but I know him, he won't let go. --Langus-TxT (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks. Please reach a consensus on the talk page. Hesperian 01:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Gents, this wasn't out of control. I wasn't even aware that Langus-TxT had come here making all these allegations against me (is there no requirement on wikisource to inform editors there is a discussion about them?) FWIW Langus is an Argentine editor who has been stalking my edits on en.wikipedia for years. His latest, I'm apparently a British Government agent spreading disinformation on the Internet [10].
He has an obsession with removing any material he considers is detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim to the Falklands and for some reason has decided that the fact Jewitt was convicted of piracy in absentia in Portugual is one such fact that is detrimental. He has tried unsuccessfully to remove any mention of it on en.wikipedia. You know what guys, this is your playground, I have no desire to bring conflict here and if your want to side with this guy and say he is right. You know what knock yourselves out. But at least let me play on a level playing field, I can't respond if I don't know I'm being talked about.
I don't think I was being unreasonable to expect text that stood unchallenged for months had some degree of consensus and was genuinely trying to improve coverage. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for not letting you know. Since you edited here on the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, It seemed reasonable to assume that you would have an awareness of discussions initiated on the 13th. You were tagged into the discussion so it should have come up in your notifications.
As for the editorial dispute, I protected it as I found it. I think you should both drop the ad hominem arguments and engage constructively on the talk page.
Hesperian 01:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"You were tagged into the discussion" — Ah, no you weren't. On wikipedia, {{u}} creates a user link that also served to notify. Here, it only underlines. I believe Langus-TxT attempted to tag you in and thus notify you, but failed to do so due to template confusion. I too thought you had been tagged in. I apologise again for the misunderstanding. Hesperian 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you're unreasonable for changing text that stood unchallenged for years and then when your changes stand for months, acting like your changes have clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually It hadn't stood for years, the comment I restored was in the first and subsequent versions. And by any standard text that stood unchallenged for months is a consensus, I was quite willing to discuss it. You seem intent on personalising matters, I was not being unreasonable but by imposing a solution and vetoing every attempt to improve the description you were. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not taking part in the primary topic of discussion here, but I do refute the claim that "by any standard text that stood unchallenged for months is a consensus". No, it isn't. We've had vandalism hang around that long sometimes. We are a much smaller project than Wikipedia, with a much smaller group of regular contributors. You might be making a statement based on experiences at Wikipedia, and if so, such a statement is almost never going to be true here. We are not like Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
It was very much based on my experience at Wikipedia so thank you for explaining. No that wasn't entirely what I meant, its cited content that one editor seeks to remove as he simply sees it as detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim, not whether it has merit. Those were his words by the way not mine. Wee Curry Monster (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
What's really frustrating is that you both thought it was okay to bring this argument over here at wikisource. Arguments for any reason are usually unconstructive here at wikisource, and don't happen often. What I would like to propose is a way to turn this argument into a beneficial contribution to wikisource and to your argument. I encourage you to both go out find documents and evidence, scan them, add them to the commons, come back here and digitize them. I've already found some scans that could use some digitizing, over at c:Category:History_of_the_Falkland_Islands and c:Category:David Jewett. We would love to see you both constructively work together to expand your research in the topic of David Jewett by digitizing documents related to him here. Of course, some documents would need to be digitized to [11], but we will gladly accept the translations here. In conclusion, please find more constructive uses of your time spent here, rather than worry about a small descriptive paragraph. Thanks --Rochefoucauld (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

2602:304:af53:3e99:a935:54d:5b3f:9fc (talkcontribsdeleted contribsWHOISRDNStraceRBLshttpblock userblock log) - User was blocked at enWP for 2 years in October 2014 for recurrent long-term vandalism. Today, the user vandalized Scriptorium. The Haz talk 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: global SUL migration underway[edit]

The migration of all unattached accounts to being attached SUL accounts has started, and it is sort of progressing by wiki, so at some point in the next week we will see a string of account renames to ...~enwikisource. It is what it is. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What should be done in response to Special:BrokenRedirects listing User: or User talk: pages? I also note a new message in investigating some of those pages stating 'no such account' or something... should we even bother fixing these if that is the case re: ststus? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete them if they are that broken. Not sure why they exist however, will wait until this maintenance phase is over and see if it is still a problem rather than a quirk. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Return of the Boxing spammer[edit]

See w:User:Meters/marciano spammer for some background. Has returned over the past few days. I've been reverting the addition of a set text on various boxing and sportsman related pages and talk pages here. I've also been protecting the pages to autoconfirmed only. The result is that I've received various threats e.g. this diff (note the save text as well). I have no intention of giving in (of course), but I think the gentleman needs to cool his heels for a while. I don't know how to do a range block, but the IPs all start with 172.56. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

For the IPv4, for a set x.x.x.0 to x.x.x.255 it is a /24, so is x.x.x.0/24 to block. Here we have 172.56.32.x through 172.56.33.x so we have 172.56.32.0/23 (now blocked). Information at mw:Help:Range blocksbillinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Theghettozoo[edit]

<mode sweetness="engaged">If there is anyone here not asleep at the helm would they please be so kind as to evaluate these and assess whether this individual is worthy either of welcome and re-education; or to commend them to scuttle off back under the rock from which previously they came?</mode> AuFCL (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

been managed — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

IPs attempting commercial spam[edit]

Something seems to be using a lot of similar IP addresses to put short commercial spam phrases (but unlinked) on Talk pages.

MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Spambot Deleted contributions and /24 range blocked for 3 days. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Looking at https://whois.domaintools.com/46.229.140.12 it is a Russian mobile phone range. You can see that I blocked it globally I blocked it globally the week before. I would suggest that you give the /24 a year-long block, anon-only. I doubt that we are ever going to see good edits from it by anon IPs. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

To note a file deletion at Commons which I have asked to be reverted[edit]

Please note the deletions shown at [12] where an administrator at Commons has deleted a file. I do not believe that the file deletion was appropriate and have asked that file be undeleted. Once that is done, we will need to reverse the deletions shown on the log. I will again address the matter of Commons admin actions with Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed and resolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I have sprouted an opinion to Commons admins here. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
As a follow-up to this issue, I think there should be a bot that checks the deletion requests each day and if any nominated file is used outside Commons, it would leave a note on the talk pages of affected articles. I recall a bot doing this some years back and I think it would be a courteous thing to do. However, I'm not a coder, so if there is anybody with such knowledge, you're assistance would be highly appreciated. Green Giant (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not possible for a bot to do. The listings at Commons are incomplete thanks to a bug that was introduced years ago when some of the projects, like Wiktionary, were made case-sensitive. I put in a bugzilla report about this years ago, but the problem was never corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I have, however, asked for some kind of automated notification at our VP when Commons files used here are actually deleted there. That should be doable. BD2412 T 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I would favour a script doing this for those files nominated by script in a similar way to the file moving script when a file is renamed or in fact the household favourite Commons Delinker. Green Giant (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

{{math}} in charinsert?[edit]

Recent edits to MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js happened to draw my attention to the apparent anomaly that the "Math & logic" section contains a prototypic reference to {{math}}. As this template does not exist local to enWS (but is present at e.g. enWP) should either:

  1. charinsert be further updated to remove the unused template, or
  2. w:Template:Math be copied here?

As a devotee of direct use of <math> I personally would not be voting to retain the prototype for {{math}}—i.e. option 1—but expect most people probably feel otherwise and go for option 2. AuFCL (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Option 1 Yes check.svg Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )[edit]

After the discussion at WS:S coming to nought with the discussion about wikilinks, this person's continued adding of links outside the guidance, reversion by him of edits for the links removal, the continuing of addition of works outside of scope, etc. I have placed a temporary block on this user and started the conversation with the user about how we are going to seek compliance with our editing guidelines. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What has he added that was outside of scope? WS:SCOPE pretty clearly includes all the newspaper articles he's been adding.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
A block seems excessive, for a generally respected contributor. Just my opinion. BD2412 T 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Seek someone uninvolved to carry out said conversation. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: He is adding excerpts of text, examples are one line of a newspaper article, then ellipsis, then the last line. Excerpts are out of scope. He has been asked and asked to not add excerpts. He will add series of excerpts and they are not completed. I have moved these incomplete works back to his user pages for completion, and they are moved back without change. The processes of conversation, and of example have been attempted. @BD2412: I have tried the conversation methodology on his talk page, he has asked the community opinion about links, he still continues the linking outside the guidance and reverts edits that remove the links. @Charles Matthews: I have sought out others. I have commented on user talk page and now I have posted here. I have expressed politely and by example what is required, I don't expect to be reverted and ignored. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Indeed, a dispute that is not being resolved by methods traditional here. I offer my services, for what they are worth. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: I'd welcome any alternate process to have this user align their additions with the existing guidance, or offer valid reasons why the works/links they are adding are exceptions to the guidance. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Oh just grow up and accept CM has given you a perfect out. You are quite clearly too close to this issue to even pretend to be impartial. At this stage it simply does not matter whether you are right or wrong. Just formalise the inevitable. AuFCL (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Propose activation of bulk deletion and bulk undeletion Special pages[edit]

Rather than reanimating the recent "death" of the bulk mass delete Admin gadget with more tweaking and patching of a "somewhat fudged" script to begin with, I'd like to formally propose the activation of two MediaWiki extensions restoring not only the mass bulk deletion ability but would add the ability to mass bulk undelete as well. Activation would result in a new Special: page available only to Admins & 'Crats (or just 'Crats? or some mix of certain 'Crats and certain Admins?; please discuss if need be).

There will always be a need for these abilities regardless of how infrequent that need may have been to date. Plus there is no justification that I can think of — nor does it seem fair — to continue to call upon only those fluent in scripting, .php or happen to be wmf-lab hounds to handle this need.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)



  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.— enabling both extensions for all en.wikisource sysops & 'crats. — George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for 'crats at least. Not sure about sysops. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support—The need for bulk delete, while occasional, is definitely there. I'm not sure that bulk undelete would be used, but it might as well be there. With respect to who has access, the unfairness that George mentions with respect to scripting would also be there if restricted to 'crats alone. It would basically mean that cleanup where bulk delete would be useful would have to wait for a 'crat to be available, rather than the next available sysop. If there are doubts about a sysop having access to the tool, then there should be doubts about that sysop having any of the tools. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - speaking from experience, there are times when things need to be deleted en masse e.g. uploads of one user or a large number of pages in a category, and having both of these tools will be useful for admins. Green Giant (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMpaa (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Translation:Manshu[edit]

The work Translation:Manshu is starting to look more like an analytical work, or at the bare minimum a well-annotated work, and to me it is starting to look more like something that is appropriate for WB, than solely a Wikisource:Translations type of work. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's at best marginal for Wikibooks, and we don't have a translation here. I certainly wouldn't call it an analytical work. I don't think we should do anything until it has finished, or at least stopped progressing, at which point if necessary we can narrow it to a strict translations or move it to Wikibooks.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but since you are threatening to remove material I will not put any more work in until a resolution is found — if you do not want it in its entirety, I will simply move to write it elsewhere, and Wikisource will not receive the content. I am through with having good content deleted (see I just quit Wikipedia after 15 years in protest at content deletion) Have your discussion now, the format is clear. If you are not happy, I will remove it and work with a traditional publisher. Do give me a chance to copy the content, though. Pratyeka (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pratyeka: Rest assured that we are not looking at any hasty decisions or any retributive action. We are trying to work out the best spot within the WMF framework to host your work. It is borderline for the Translation namespace (Wikisource:Translations and Wikisource:News/2013-07#Translation_namespace) as it has elements of annotation, which is why I was seeking opinion. If you build it in your user namespace, it is definitely within scope, and we have never been that particular, it is more whether it is for Translation: ns as per our discussion to create that namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It is more the threat of waiting until the translation is finished and then modifying it significantly by removing entire facets that worries me. Frankly if that is even a possibility I will publish elsewhere. The amount of work involved in a serious translation is huge. To put one's name on something, after all of that effort, and then have its integrity destroyed by those with only a limited grasp of the subject — seemingly at a whim to suit some bureaucratic notion — is unacceptable in terms of respect to the author, but also importantly destroys the integrity and stability of the work for formal citation, academic or otherwise. I suggest that the entire notion of user-supplied original translations on Wikisource needs to have a different policy with regards to post-facto editing than general pages, in order to respect the integrity of author's work. Pratyeka (talk) 07:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are looking for the unalienable right to put up your translation of a work, which then should be protected from other editing, then maybe English Wikisource is not the place for your work. We are not experts and the site has an open collective editing policy, that said we don't generally see vandalism and we have an expectation of citing of changes. We are aware that translation is a large body of effort, and we have seen failures of that before, which is why we have set up the space more openly, and looking to have the ability to load foreign language texts into the Page: ns, and to translate them for transclusion into the Translation ns:. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)