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 = 1,724,700
No. of articles = 764,306
No. of files = 12,859
No. of edits = 5,467,573


No. of pages in Main = 319,763
No. of pages in Page: = 1,109,535
No. validated in Page: = 203,218
No. proofread in Page: = 309,807
No. not proofread in Page: = 497,085
No. problematic in Page: = 18,457
No. of validated works = 1,656
No. of proofread only works = 932
No. of pages in Main 
with transclusions = 108,299
% transcluded pages in Main = 33.87
Σ pages in Main 


No. of users = 2,159,257
No. of active users = 328
No. of group:autopatrolled = 406
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)