Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard
| Wikisource snapshot |
|---|
|
No. of pages = 4,409,768 No. of pages in Main = 617,866 No. of users = 3,139,711 |
Checkuser requests
[edit]- 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
Bureaucrat requests
[edit]- To request a global rename, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest.
Page (un)protection requests
[edit] | At this section you can request protection of a page, eg. a text that you have checked against a hard copy, or a template. Please make sure that the request follows the requirements of the procedure for protecting pages. You can also request unprotection of a text according to the procedure for protecting pages. You should request a reprotection when your work is done. Alternately utilise {{edit protected}} for the respective talk page. |
Other
[edit]Category:External links on protected pages & Category:Templates used in Mediawiki namespace
[edit]We have a bit of a maintenance issue in that external links in protected templates and mediawiki: ns are being missed when we are updating links. To assist, I have created the above parent tracking category to label such pages. We obviously cannot use it on Mediawiki: pages, so will have to be content with putting it on the corresponding talk page. I am working through creating subcats for each WMF tool that I find as they are more likely need to be what is changed, and will do some checks. I will note that as some of these pages use conditional code or includeonly so may be a little tricky to find by searching. [Reminder to not unnecessarily hide things to just avoid visual errors in non-display namespaces or ugly display code.] I am hoping that this will also allow us to check these a little more easily as we have suffered some link rot. I think that we may also need to put some checking categories on these so we can at least check these yearly, though haven't got that far and welcome people's thoughts.
I have also identified that we have had some templates transcluded to the mediawiki: ns that have not been protected. Can I express that any such templates need to be fully protected. If you are using a template within another template, then all subsidiary templates also need to be protected. Noting that it often it can be safest to simply use html span and div code and embedded css.
On that note, if we are protecting templates, it is better practice to use separate {{documentation}} so the docs can readily updated without someone asking for editing of protected templates. This is not pointing fingers, as some of these are old static pages that don't readily get traffic, and reflect older generation practices.
I welcome any suggestions/feedback here, and any help perusing of the template: and mediawiki: namespaces for targets. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- Seems we already have Category:MediaWiki namespace templates, I will transition to that and update categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Download button vs. download sidebar
[edit]I’m reporting this here because I think an administrator needs to fix a page. The download features in the sidebar don’t do the same thing as the “download” button which floats to the right of the title; see, e.g., here, where the “Download” button gets the whole book, and the download sidebar features only get a list of the books. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The placeholders were added in the wrong places, so some moving of pages (with suppression) needs to be done. /3 and /4 need to be deleted and /5 moved to /3. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.: It appears like MarkLSteadman has already performed the necessary changes. Could you please check and confirm this request has been addressed? Xover (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
The placeholders for this index were not correct in some places, so some moving needs to happen. /1 needs to be deleted. /4–/8 need to be moved down one. /9–/13 (placeholders) need to be deleted. The pages from /14–/93 need to be moved down four. The remaining pages from /169–/375 need to be moved down five. Finally, the assorted placeholder pages—/55, /56, /123, /349, and /353—need to be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TE(æ)A,ea.:
Done. Please check and confirm the results look ok. Xover (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
My Wikisource user and talk pages are defaced with personal attacks
[edit]My user page on wikisource.org has been defaced with a personal attack by an IP almost certainly of LTA user Andrew5 from the English Wikipedia. I am not versed in Wikisource as much as I am Wikipedia, and don't currently know the process for reporting this activity. I know this page is for en.wikisource, but I can't find the equivalent page there. If someone could point me towards there, or otherwise do the best of their abilities to get this attack removed, I would appreciate it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GeorgeMemulous: mulWS (Multilingual Wikisource) does not have a separate Administrators' Noticeboard so they use their Scriptorium (Village Pump) instead. I have posted a request for admin intervention there and pinged the most recently active admins on that project. I manually blanked your user page there, and requested the admins delete it and semi-protect both your user and user talk pages. You may want to chime in the thread. Xover (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- @GeorgeMemulous: Koavf (who is an admin on mulWS) has handled this issue there. The vandalised pages seem to have been deleted and protection applied. Xover (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Misuse of rollback by an admin
[edit]EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) has used rollback twice on edits that undo an established style on a work. Per Wikisource:Restricted access policy (emphasis in original): "The rollback feature automatically reverts the latest changes from a user to a particular page with the standardised edit summary "Reverted edits by $2 (talk) to last revision by $1". This tool exists primarily to simplify the reversion of malicious edits. Although it can theoretically be used to revert any change, it may be aggravating to the affected user if it is used to rollback a legitimate change which the administrator disagrees with. Administrators should avoid rolling back legitimate edits if at all possible, and the rollback feature should never be used in a reversion war." I would like another admin to please intervene to discourage this kind of behavior. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Diffs:
- —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did not rollback an established style; I removed a superfluous style template which you added to my edits, and which change you made three times, despite opposition. I had communicated the issue to you on your Talk page, asking if I should start a discussion on the issue, and I have done so in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- The style has been used in the table of contents along with other pages of that work for years. As noted above: "the rollback feature should never be used in a reversion war" and is typically used for "malicious" edits. Are you actually arguing that your use of rollback was appropriate with those two stipulations? "which change you made three times" What? Which three diffs? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have yet to see any evidence of an "established style" advocating use of {{old style}}, as the primary contributor has been creating pages for the past month without use of the template, and the pages in question I created earlier today, without the use of the template either. The argument for "established style" appears to hinge upon the creation of 6 pages (of the ~450 pp. total) two years ago, after which the transcription was abandoned until last month. Of the three pages of the Table of Contents, only six lines on the third page were created at that time. The Index did not even have a pagelist until another editor and I added one. The editor who has taken up the abandoned project has not used the template in the ~300 pages created. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, if you want to ignore my questions, I'll bow out and leave it up to other admins to see if this is an appropriate use of rollback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: I give Justin edge on nothing in this situation, but on one issue they are correct: rollback is intended to be used for straight up vandalism; for anything else use normal revert/undo. Over on the big sister they have this enshrined in policy (and enforce it like a bright-line rule), which is probably why Justin is so worked up over that part in particular. We don't have the same culture surrounding rollback on enWS, but the applicability is global (it is mirrored in various technical permissions etc.). Note that the only real difference between rollback and undo is that rollback uses a canned edit summary (technically speaking it is the exact same operation), so this is an issue that exists at a cultural level not a technical level. Xover (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, if you want to ignore my questions, I'll bow out and leave it up to other admins to see if this is an appropriate use of rollback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have yet to see any evidence of an "established style" advocating use of {{old style}}, as the primary contributor has been creating pages for the past month without use of the template, and the pages in question I created earlier today, without the use of the template either. The argument for "established style" appears to hinge upon the creation of 6 pages (of the ~450 pp. total) two years ago, after which the transcription was abandoned until last month. Of the three pages of the Table of Contents, only six lines on the third page were created at that time. The Index did not even have a pagelist until another editor and I added one. The editor who has taken up the abandoned project has not used the template in the ~300 pages created. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- The style has been used in the table of contents along with other pages of that work for years. As noted above: "the rollback feature should never be used in a reversion war" and is typically used for "malicious" edits. Are you actually arguing that your use of rollback was appropriate with those two stipulations? "which change you made three times" What? Which three diffs? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I did not rollback an established style; I removed a superfluous style template which you added to my edits, and which change you made three times, despite opposition. I had communicated the issue to you on your Talk page, asking if I should start a discussion on the issue, and I have done so in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I find it aggravating when my legitimate edits are rolled back or reverted, and would encourage all users to refrain from using the rollback feature in this manner. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearly improper. The proper action would be a revert (one revert), followed by a discussion on the index talk. The use of old-style numbers is not controlled by any universal, project-wide policy, so it is generally the province of editors working on the index (decided through consensus on the index talk) to determine a work-level style (as to this issue, or any issue where there is no universal style). There is certainly not any established policy against using old-style numbers; in that case, rollback might be appropriate. In this instance, the rollback was used in clear contravention of our rollback policy—in service of an edit war to support the administrator’s (incorrect) interpretation of policy. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The file has been moved; this should now be at Index:Sesame and Lilies - Ruskin (1895).djvu. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
In this index, /1 needs to be deleted and all other pages moved down 1. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done The first several pages were blank, so I moved only the pages with content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The original upload of this file had many pages removed, for some reason (separate from the two missing pages, which have been added). The following pages need to be moved:
- /2–/12 up 5
- /13–/15 up 6
- /16 up 7
- /17–/65 up 8
- /66 up 9
- /67–/149 up 10
- /150 up 11
- /151–/185 up 12
- /186 up 13
- /187–/192 up 14
- /193 up 19
The large swath of pages marked “Problematic” is, I believe, owing to the confused state of the pages. I’ll look over them after the move to see if they need to be changed in any respect. In addition, /31 and /32 can be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)