Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard

Wikisource snapshot

No. of pages = 4,451,135
No. of articles = 1,072,732
No. of files = 16,275
No. of edits = 14,578,456

---

No. of pages in Main = 622,902
No. of pages in Page: = 3,336,664
No. validated in Page: = 659,278
No. proofread in Page: = 1,310,244
No. not proofread in Page: = 1,065,706
No. problematic in Page: = 46,054
No. of validated works = 6,573
No. of proofread only works = 6,646
No. of pages in Main
with transclusions = 413,262
% transcluded pages in Main = 66.34
Σ pages in Main

---

No. of users = 3,144,377
No. of active users = 468
No. of group:autopatrolled = 500
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

Bureaucrat requests

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

Other

Category:External links on protected pages & Category:Templates used in Mediawiki namespace

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

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)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I don't know why nobody followed up on this issue back in February. Possibly it's because it's a somewhat technical issue and we're a little short on technically-minded admins. In any case: apologies for dropping the ball on this one! Could you retest the issue you originally saw to verify it still behaves the way you observed then? I suspect there may have been intervening changes.

@Samwilson: Using the Download button to download a PDF on the page TE(æ)A,ea. links above gives me a PDF with all the auxtoc pages but none of the actual chapters. Can you tell what's going on there? Xover (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Now, both options are broken. I suspect your removal of the hidden ToC is to blame. Having reverted that change, the issue is reversed: the “download” button gets only the list of books, while the sidebar gets the whole book. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

  @TE(æ)A,ea., @Xover: I would've said that the sidebar links and the button are the same links, but they're not it seems:

  • Button: https://ws-export.wmcloud.org/?format=epub&lang=en&page=The_Wings_of_the_Dove_(New_York%3A_Charles_Scribner%27s_Sons%2C_1902)
  • Sidebar: https://ws-export.wmcloud.org/?format=epub&lang=en&page=The_Wings_of_the_Dove_%28New_York%3A_Charles_Scribner%27s_Sons%2C_1902%29

  And indeed, the output differs. It's also different from the CLI tool's output with an unencoded title. I'll have a look at fixing this. Sam Wilson 07:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Index:Studies in constitutional law Fr-En-US (1891).pdf

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)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Done Xover (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Xover: Thank you. For those pages, delete /158, /159, /161, /196, and /197, and move /163–/195 up two. They can then all be marked as proofread. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet accounts

Based on their editing style, I believe that ALPHATMINJO (talk • contribs) and Natella1995 (talk • contribs) are the same person using undisclosed sockpuppet accounts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Change to proofreading colors

If you go to proofread a page, the colors of the buttons have changed (they’re now so washed out as to be unreadable). This is being discussion here, as well, but I thought it important enough to bring to the attention of administrators. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Adding your voice, explaining the problem, in the Scriptorium is probably more useful. That is the discussion that was linked from the Phabricator ticket, so that is where developers will look to see what the issue is, how it has impacted the community, and what (if anything) to do about it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed block for User:C. A. Russell

Proposed block for User:C. A. Russell:

• Making changes contrary to policy and without discussion
• Then reverting others, accusing them of doing the very same thing: [1]; [2]
• Reverting admin edits that align with established policy: [3], then claiming that such policy-aligned edits are a "substantial change being introduced needs proposal/discussion"

This editor's pattern of editing and interaction seems deliberately confrontational. The user was previously blocked for uncivil comments, and upon return resumed the same problematic editing from before the block. We still have no explanation of the no Gricing allowed edit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Please stop—please stop the obstructionist/adversarial edits, and please stop the misleading, heavyhanded, uncharitable mischaracterizations about the history and intentions of someone you're in a conflict with.

Please do reach for arguments that hold up under scrutiny because of their merits rather than because A is saying it, and A is an admin, etc.

We had and continue to have two templates/categories for pages where we a way to locate the material from which a given transcription was created:

• Category:Texts without a source (populated by template:no source) for "works which do not have a declared source"
• Category:Texts without a scan (populated by template:no scan) for works without "a scanned copy of the edition from which it was transcribed"

Your unilateral changes to this template back in August are substantial. If we are to take your comments in the original discussion that precipitated my proposal for an interaction ban between the two of us at face value, then this change amounts to a change in the prescription for how the templates are used, and renders the distinction between these categories null. If we take instead your newest comments at face value, then we still end up with people almost certainly misunderstanding the prescription and tagging Category:Texts without a source/{{no source}} things that should be tagged Category:Texts without a scan/{{no scan}}.

If you want to change the text of the template, then please, by all means make clear what your reasons are, stick to the same argument, and let folks weigh the argument on its merits and weigh in after you propose the change first on the template talk page. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything you've just said applies to you. Your edits and comments suggest that you intend to make rules for others, without following them yourself. This is part of what "deliberately confrontational" means. It also covers your repeated refusal to answer direct questions, such as: What does "no Gricing allowed" mean? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Based on the blocking policy, the only justification for a block would be excessive reverts and as both parties to this dispute are engaged in this I do not support a block at this time. In respect of the underlying issue, this is not the venue for the discussion on the differences between no scan and no source. Come up with a concrete proposal for how the two should look and be distinguished and put it in the Proposals section of the Scriptorium. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: I'm not trying to adjudicate this here. That's why I said multiple times to discuss it on the template talk page. And to be excruciatingly clear: *I* am not proposing a change—the changes are User:EncycloPetey's. I'm advocating *against* the change, precisely *because* it has not been proposed and broadly accepted. User:Jan.Kamenicek, I think you need to comment here, given your involvement (belated—why?—and why without restoring the correct revision that existed prior to the edit warring?) C. A. Russell (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Things which are already policy do not need to be proposed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth; if you really believe that, then why have you opened this discussion with a complaint that I made a change1 without discussion?

Ignoring that—where is the policy that says things that belong to Category:Texts without a scan should be tagged template:no source rather than template:no scan? C. A. Russell (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your first statement, see the initial posting: you made a change contrary to policy without discussion; the change I made is in accordance with policy. Regarding your second statement, I have made no edit or change about how things should be tagged or categorized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire basis for your introducing that change was in an edit conflict where you were trying to justify the use of template:no source on a page that had a source. Your rationale was that it needed a scan. We have template:no scan.

It may be the case that the statement exhorting people to add a scan of the source document ("a scanned copy of the source document is preferred") is not against policy, but that's certainly not how you were wielding the fact that the template says (because you changed it to say so) in the dispute where you brought it up.

You're prevaricating. C. A. Russell (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

"[A] scanned copy of the source document is preferred" certainly doesn't contradict policy. Would it be okay to add it any random template, then? Or every template? They're words that don't contradict policy. This is the argument you are making.

We're talking about template:no source. The question is not whether there is any statement that contradicts policy. The question is whether it has anything to do with what the template is about. The template is for things "do not have a declared source". template:no source is not template:no scan. C. A. Russell (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Further developments: This user made a change to the Wikisource:Index which I reverted as irrelevant. The user restored the edit [4], so I asked them to please provide context, so readers would know why the link is there. The user chose to delete my request instead of engaging in discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@C. A. Russell: Well, I do not really like the way you ask me for a comment, but I will answer... Although I noticed the edit warring after it seemingly had ceased, I decided to protect the page to prevent its renewal. If you want to do there any changes and if the community approves them, the page can be unprotected any time. I protected the page including the addition that "a scanned copy of the source document is preferred" because this addition just mirrors the current practice that has been widely accepted by established users in Wikisource. If you do not agree with this practice, you can challenge it somewhere and try to convince the community to change it.

As for the above mentioned revert: To me the added link also does not seem much relevant to the contents of the page, but it is especcially your confrontational style that includes the deletion of the admin's request for comment and also the very uncivil summary to your revert ("if it were irrelevant, I wouldn't have added it") which is not acceptable. Please, abandon this confrontational style. If you continue in this way, you may be blocked without another warning. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop doing this?: "If you want to do there any changes and if the community approves them". There have been multiple utterances on ANI with that shape—responses that completely abandon w:Grice's maxim of relevance. This is the second time I've counted it occurring in this discussion alone.

Imagine if I walked in on you and your partner in a domestic dispute and your partner was striking you. You, trying to get them to stop, seek help. My response, apropos of nothing that's actually happening? To address you, advising you (*you*, not your partner) that "if you want to beat your partner, you either need to do it in some jurisdiction where that's okay, or suffer the consequences for doing it here." C. A. Russell (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jan.Kamenicek: I am not introducing or attempting to introduce any changes to the template. Please, please, please actually pay attention to what you're acting on and what you are saying and to whom. User:EncycloPetey *is* introducing changes; I am not. Your responses make no sense.

THIS IS THE PAGE AS IT EXISTED: 2021 January 22 revision by User:Inductiveload

THIS IS THE CHANGE YOU ARE PROTECTING: a change by EncycloPetey (introduced for the sole purpose of winning an argument about the misuse of template:no source on a page that had a source, but no scan)

THESE ARE THE CHANGES BETWEEN MY REVISION AND THE REVISION BY User:Inductiveload: "No difference"

Given that the entire basis of my position is that User:EncycloPetey has introduced changes without discussion, and that these changes violate the previous prescribed use of template:no source vs template: no scan, it is *so* obnoxious and frustrating to receive "advice" about *my* (non-existent) desires to make changes—and the approval that changes need before they will be allowed to stick. That is the exact opposite of what has actually happened. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Everything has already been explained quite clearly, it seems to me that you do not want to understand. I suggest you focus on adding content and learn from what more experienced editors tell you. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

What, exactly, is clear about your and other editors'—who seem not to have actually reviewed the facts that they're commenting on—advising me (perversely) that changes to the template need to be proposed and discussed before they are accepted—when the fact is that I am neither interested in proposing nor attempting to add anything to the template?

The facts: there are additions—not mine—that have been inserted, without any proposal or discussion. I am opposed to them.

But at least two of you have fallen over yourselves dropping non-sequiturs directed at/about me concerning changes I'm purported to be insisting on seeing made to the template.

The fact is, again, that I am not, and it does no use to advise me to propose/discussion additions that I am not making and do not seek to make. C. A. Russell (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

It's also fairly obnoxious that I've been repeatedly roped into time-wasting interactions by the other party in this series of disputes, bringing to a standstill the work that I *was* doing outside of this, only to then to be admonished by you to "focus on adding content".

If I'm going to propose anything here, it would be that at least two of you voluntarily de-admin and focus exclusively on adding content yourselves, or at the very least allow others to do the same unmolested without raising charges that their attempts to focus on adding content is proof of their "not listening". C. A. Russell (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Another issue: self revert with comment "remove relevant link—folks landing on Wikipedia:Index because they're looking for information about the Index pages described at Help:Namespaces can and should go jump off a cliff" --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As this happened shortly before the last warning and there has not been any new incident since, I am inclined to include it into that warning without blocking at this moment. But the user is walking on thin ice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

SpikeShroom changing style without discussion

User:SpikeShroom has begun a major style change across Divine Comedy (Longfellow 1867) without discussion, and has asserted a right to "change its style in other ways as I see fit". In the past this ha been considered bad form and unacceptable. I am asking other administrators to explain the problems with this attitude and approach. I have let SpikeShroom know this is a problem, but they have refused to undo their changes and (and I say) asserted a right to make any desired changes to the work, despite a clearly established style. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

After thinking about it for awhile, I have decided to revert all my edits (except the CSS style file, which I can't delete). I am happy to discuss ways I can help you complete this transcription.

—SpikeShroom (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The way of discussion by SpikeShroom should have been better, what I also really dislike is: The reason I'm doing this without preliminary discussion is because I do not need permission to begin editing works. At the same time I acknowledge the change of the tone in the contribution above. As for the changing of the style: When there are more equally accepted options how to do various formatting, it is usually really inappropriate when a contributor changes the style applied by somebody else just because of their personal preference. Generally I agree that such undiscussed changes should usually be reverted, but in this particular case it is also worth noting that the work was abandoned years ago. It is highly desirable that somebody finishes it and having a contributor willing to continue the work, I suggest being tolerant to them applying a different approach in the rest of the book and making the already proofread parts consistent with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Note: the work itself was completed, all of the Inferno and its Notes were proofread. Only some of the appendices containing additional separate works, bound in the same volume and consisting of about 50 pages, had not been done. These are separate works, by other authors than Dante, which Longfellow included in the Appendices so that the reader would not have to amass a library of volumes to access the documents and poems he referred to in the Notes. They are not part of the same poem, most are in prose, and many are excerpts quoted from much longer works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The work is Divine Comedy, not Inferno, I understand and sympathize if that someone is willing to proofread 2/3 volumes they have a strong case for updating the first volume to match the other two for consistency. I am not sure there is a perfect flow here, and if the contributor has been here for 4 years, 8k edits they probably are motivated to do the work. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of steward CU

Hello there, as per the local CU policy I just wanted to let you know that I performed a local check on a spambot (LawerenceCorley (talk • contribs)) here at enwikisource. This was the only check performed here by me, no other accounts or IPs other than the associated ones were checked. Thanks, EPIC (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I am informing you that I checked the account Dahyang8484 (talk • contribs), which I locked for cross-wiki abuse. No other account has been checked or showed up on the checks I performed. For transparency, I've sent detailed information to checkuser-l. Best regards, Elton (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

My suggestion on the "Hitler's Testament" talk page was removed

I tried to ask the admin why on their talk page but I got an error saying my post is "disallowed". Toadguy64 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Can you explain why this user's comment was removed? It was in regards to changing a link target? It is true that by WS:ANN the current link is the correct one, but the comment was about our copy and improving its quality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Toadguy64: (with edit conflict) Hello, it was me who deleted the message as a part of general clean-up of Talk:My Political Testament where various out-of scope discussions piled up. By mistake I thought that your contribution was one of those non-sensical texts, which was a misunderstanding for which I apologize. After checking the Abuse log for what you then tried to write on my talk page and what was disallowed by the Abuse Filter (which is probably oversensitive to some combinations of words including "Nazi" etc. on talk pages), I understood your point better. If you want to change the external link inside the text from w:Aryan to w:Aryan race, you can do it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I can see that EncycloPetey considers the original link better. I have no opinion on this, both seem quite possible to me. I generally prefer avoiding external links inside Wikisource texts and using them only very exceptionally, but I know that some others advocate adding such links, and so I just try to tolerate them. BTW, I returned the above discussed contribution to the talk page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Jan.Kamenicek, please pay attention to what you're acting on and what you are saying to whom—contra: what's actually going on—(especially if it involves removing people's comments from public discussions) so that this doesn't continue happening.-- C. A. Russell (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit requests

Can somebody who understands the problems better have a look at the requests that have gathered at Category:Wikisource protected edit requests, please? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)