Wikiversity:Request custodian action

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Request custodian action)
Jump to: navigation, search
Custodians' tool

New request
Please sign with -- ~~~~

Wikiversity Custodians are users who have access to technical features that help with maintenance of Wikiversity. Those features include protecting and deleting pages, blocking other editors, and undoing these actions as well. Custodians are both trusted members of the community and generally well known.

About this page
Favicon.gif Action required

Favicon.gif Templates

Favicon.gif Development

Favicon.gif Reference

Favicon.gif Events and news

Custodian requests Entries
Purge cache
Edit protected page 0
Speedy deletion 1
Expired prods 310
Own page deletion 0
Unblock requests 0
Possible copyvio 1
History merge 0

Botnet Spambot Attack[edit]

We've been under a botnet spambot attack for the last 20 hours or so. See Special:AbuseLog for more information. The filters appear to be stopping the edits. I've added 1 week blocks on the associated IP addresses to reduce traffic for a bit and provide a record in case of recurrence. Please actively monitor the Abuse Log for the next several days to ensure that edits aren't getting through. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I need help understanding what I am supposed to monitor. I can see that in the hour following 13:48, 5 November 2015, you blocked a large number of IP addresses. I also figured out that it is filter 6 or 9 that is being triggered. But what I don't understand is what I am supposed to do.(revised from edit a few minutes ago)--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
^My best bet that any IPs that are blocked for "New User Added External Link", because that's the reason the spambot's attacks were blocked from publishing. I'll be sure to help around if I could. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. You can watch to see if any of the edits get through and then undo them. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Please watch for new entries and block them if they appear. Review the filter log and add appropriate text to existing filters that prevent those edits rather than simply identifying them. If this type of abuse continues, we may need to look at changing Filter 6 so that it blocks external links from unconfirmed users rather than simply reporting it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Checking Special:AbuseLog, I decided to look at Victor Hugo quote. Almost all of the recent edits have been IP spam and solicitation and undoing of same so I set the protect to autoconfirmed users and up. Not one IP has contributed constructively since about 2010. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Ed - Education Extension: Something Wikiversity needs.[edit]

At Portal_talk:Tertiary_Education/We_need_an_action_plan#Feedback_on_Education_Extension, I was informed by User:Leutha that the educational extension is postponed indefinitely due to "security issues" (see here). I spent several hours investigating this platform on Wikipedia and think it would be useful on Wikiversity for two reasons:

  1. It facilitates registering students in a classroom: A password can be announced in class (or on a CMS) and students can use it to register at home.
  2. A lot of pages on Wikiversity need improvement. Instructors can assign several such resources on the extension, and very easily monitor each student's effort. The instructor has access a page that lists all the students. Click a student's name, and you see which of the assigned pages have been edited by a given student. The character count gives an indication whether the edit was major or minor, and pressing diff allows the instructor to see the actual edit.

How long should we wait before reapplying?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Reapplying doesn't seem to be the issue. Instead, we need to find ways to make the security improvements a reality so that it can be installed here. I thought a few weeks ago there was an opportunity to submit requests for development priorities for the coming year. Improving education by making this extension available and improving the assessment (quiz) tool would be my top priorities. Perhaps you can find where to submit a request. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Announcement was from the Community Tech team to submit a Community Wishlist Survey. See what I wrote at:
--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Leutha, Dave Braunschweig, Atcovi: You have all expressed an interest in this. Please go and endorse; edits are OK with me, too.

FYI, I removed the bullet on Curators. That ticket seems to be making its way through the process. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Good, that keeps it simple --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Go here to endorse:[edit]

--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity's blacklist[edit]

Hi Dave, I'm trying to link on my page but it seems to be registered on Wikiversity's blacklist. Could you please help? Thank you! Best, Jorge Louçã (discusscontribs) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Try using the direct URL of instead. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It works fine, thank you ! Jorge Louçã (discusscontribs) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Spam filter[edit]

I keep getting caught by the spam filter for every edit I make, save one actually harmful edit (that I didn't think would go through but somehow did). What I wanted to do was change the Web Design course project Web Design/A small website project so that it had proper formatting (level three header instead of accidental level one header). Appable (discusscontribs) 23:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, I don't think you have a problem. Just keep editing. You don't have a history, though perhaps you IP address does. Did you previously edit as an IP editor? --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
See the Special:AbuseLog. The edits are there, but not successful. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you do not have sufficient edit history to make edits that include external links. Wikiversity is under attack right now by multiple bot-nets trying to use Wikiversity for free advertising. You'll need to make multiple productive edits that don't involve anything that appears to be spam before you can edit content that includes external links. Sorry, but there's not much else we can do at the present time. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Protection of this page[edit]

It's going to be used as a page for spamming, so I suggest a prevention of IP addresses and newly created accounts to not be able to edit this page. Thanks ----Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying a different approach first. We'll see if it works. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Block of Spambots[edit]

User:JoellenSalier34 ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Account was blocked this morning. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Need another block User:Samayanews (advertising "Samaya News" on userspage) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the problem with this account? --mikeu talk 13:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There was a solicitous post on the user page. Atcovi deleted it. I'm not sure a block is necessary here unless it repeats. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
In meta-wiki, and wikibooks (pretty much, all of wikimedia), they block an account for spam.. even if it's once. There was a situation I forgot to block a spambot, and the spambot spammed again. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw the contents of the page. This account has exactly one global edit. It is entirely possible that the sole purpose of the user is too spam, but it is also possible that a misguided user naively included a link to a site that triggered our abuse filter. I don't consider a single edit as proof of intent to spam, which is, by definition, "sending messages repeatedly on the same site" (emphasis added.) I think it was a good idea to delete the user page which is likely a a copyvio. I am aware that other projects have a low threshold for blocking. I would remind Wikimedians: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I'll keep an eye on the contribs and reconsider if I see another instance of spam. --mikeu talk 15:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Why did you welcome this account? This user's only intention is to advertise the account's news (see here: (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The {{welcome}} template does more than just "welcome" someone, it also informs them of the purpose and appropriate use of this site. --mikeu talk 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending deletions that came due Jan 1 2016[edit]

Happy new year! A lot of pending deletions came due Jan 1 in Category:Pending_deletions. I deleted several out of caution decided to wait until the were no technical or consensus issues before proceeding with the rest.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! Many of the Category:Pending deletions are part of the Sport/Volleyball set of subpages. I've been looking at these as part of Dominant group/Wikiversity which is an off-shoot of Dominant group/Wikipedia. Don't worry if you deleted some. If I need to check them out I will undelete them. My analysis isn't finished but it appears in a comparison with Upper Limb Orthotics, as part of a control group, that the whole mess that ensued could have been completely avoided if the advisor to the students had taken the time to contact us. It seems his "Rose Mapeh" group of students in the Philippines picked Wikiversity to prepare their project for the "Rose Mapeh" program. They are probably students in a Philippine's high school.
Also, those images that are part of Creating Dynamic Lessons may be eligible for Fair use and need not be deleted. The learning resource which has about nine parts may be a valuable contribution but may need curation.
I haven't gone through the rest yet, but many can probably be deleted. The same curation question applies to the images in Category:Possible copyright violations.
The same curation may be possible for those images already deleted or pending for North Carolina World War I. Once the first round of essays ended the course instructor provided one or more sources for the images used. But, again, made apparently no effort to have her students license them. We could put these up for consensus approval before curation, or just curate them for future contributors. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I think that I would be delighted if you can figure all this out. I will almost certainly concur with your decisions.Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Please take a look at pages that link to {{Welcome and expand}} and {{Welcome header and search}}.

In 2009 there was a misguided contributor who bulk created many hundreds of empty pages that only contained those templates. There were more that had the template and a couple of links to wp or maybe a sentence or two. A bot flagged the pages that only contained the template and nothing else for speedy and most were deleted. I've noticed that quite a few of these are still around and some have not been edited since 2009. (I'm not counting category or other meta edits.)

I've started to re-template the few that did get expanded with {{stub}} to whittle the list of pages that link to those templates down to a manageable size to make it easier to review what is left. Later we can repurpose the template if desired. I can provide more info if anyone would like to know the detailed backstory. As I stated then, these pages could be detrimental to our search engine ranking. --mikeu talk 18:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Community Review

We really need to take a closer look at pages that he has bulk created. We should also take a look at how search engines rank sites, to determine if these pages without content are detrimental to people finding our content when searching. From what I have been reading recently I am starting to suspect that a large quantity of pages without content on a server could lower the ranking of our entire site. There are also related issues of navigation and possible user frustration that need to be discussed.

--mikeu talk 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
My comment: There is one and only one reason to eliminate pages, and you understand it: If these pages hurt our search rankings they need to be eliminated. On the other hand, if they do no harm, we shouldn't waste valuable time removing them. Unfortunately, I know nothing about how search engines work. I guess it not a yes-no issue: If such pages do only modest harm, then we could take a slow and gradual approach to cleaning up. How do we assess the damage?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I can't say that I know for certain that these pages hurt our search ranking because Google's algorithms are proprietary and unpublished. There is no objective way to unambiguously evaluate the damage. I've started Google/Search and Wikiversity to try to study this issue. These pages duplicate our own search engine. They could easily be replaced by a dynamic page with templates that serve the same function. If our search feature is inadequate, we should improve it. Creating pages like this is not an effective substitute. I would argue that the lack of activity on these pages (no edits since 2009) is proof that they are ineffective at stimulating activity on our site. My personal experience is that they are harming the site as I have experienced much frustration trying to find legitimate content only to find empty pages with nothing but boilerplate.
Please see Wikiversity:Community_Review/User:Wikademia#New_discussion to get the backstory to the creation of these pages. They were started by a misguided contributor (numerous sockpuppets now indef blocked on multiple wikimedia projects) who bulk created many hundreds of these page despite overwhelming community objections. The user was repeatedly asked why this was a good idea and refused to respond. There is some evidence that this was a deliberate attempt (successful or not) to hurt our search ranking and divert traffic to his personal site. (He created a "search" template that redirected our users to his site) I can provide copious links to the Community Reviews where there was strong consensus that this was harmful. --mikeu talk 15:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
There are two parts to the search problem. One is external searches, such as from Google with search rankings. The other is internal searches using the search box at the top of the page. Both have similar impact in that too much clutter discourages use. It is possible for Wikiversity to appear high on Google rankings. The IT Fundamentals resource has been appearing in the top five links on Google, above all other published texts on the subject. But there is a feedback loop involved. Good content gets more hits, making it more visible, which leads to more hits. The more useless content we can improve or eliminate, the more likely people will be to turn to Wikiversity when it does appear in a search.
To Mike's point, the idea in the 2007-2008 period of just creating starter pages so that there's something to improve on isn't effective here. To expand on the theme from Field of Dreams, if you build it, they will come. If you just dig a hole for the foundation and leave a pile of rubble, they won't come, and no one else will build on the debris. I don't see any advantage to fighting the old battle of why it was created, although it is interesting history. The evidence that the pages are not valuable (usage counts) and not improved (edit counts) from the last seven or eight years is sufficient to start cleaning up the mess. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's say that I am a new user and I type Telescope in our search box. It takes me to a page with a few pretty pictures, but 90% of the links take me away from wikiversity. These pages do a great job of promoting other wmf sites, but they essentially function as a redirect away from our project. In that limited sense I do consider them to be harmful. In any case, this would not make for a good w:First impression (psychology).
I'm in no mad rush to nuke them. I'm simply explaining that they exist due to a misguided user who bulk created ~1,000 of these pages. There was also some evidence[1] that it was done intentionally to drive contributors away from the site, rather then a "field of dreams" motivation. Regardless of the intent I suspect that it has done that. I think it is important to eventually whittle the list down, but certainly not urgent. This is more of a notice to explain the reasoning why I'm tagging so many pages for removal. --mikeu talk 20:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A template that seems to do nothing[edit]

Speaking of cleaning up, as far as I can tell Template:Active course does nothing. It seems intended to use mw:Extension:ImageMap but the extension seems not to be working. If there is another template we use for active courses, then this one should be deleted, right?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 14:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

There are multiple issues here. The idea behind image map is to be able to use an image with multiple links. A good example is the map in Comparative law and justice, where image map works fine. Using image map with a single link on a very small image isn't effective.
Regarding multiple templates for the same purpose, sometimes we have redirects. Sometimes we have two different templates if the effect is different. I'm not sure which alternative active course template you are thinking of, but the ones I have in mind have a different visual, which has a different impact on page/course display. It may depend on what the designer is looking for.
Finally, there is a question of effectiveness. It doesn't seem like this template would have much impact. It's easy to overlook. But it's also only used on a minor page of a larger project. The larger project has more hits and no notice. Neither page appears to have had significant outside edits. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The template is used on Radiation astronomy/Courses/Principles to both indicate an active course and to dissuade IP vandalism without actually having the resource protected against IP vandalism. It seems to work. The idea is similar to an elephant totem. I have one in my front yard and there haven't been any elephants trampling my grass since I put in the totem. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If you go into the edit mode of Template:Active course you will see that the author's intent was a short explanation to accompany the Padlock.svg image. Instead all the reader sees is padlock that they won't click because they assume the link goes to commons. If we ever get a cadre of teachers who use the Curator status to protect courses we can fix. Till then, I'll move on to something else.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If you hover the mouse over the padlock the text appears in a popup and clicking on the icon takes you to the link. It looks like it is working to me. --mikeu talk 03:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Amazing.-Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Template with same name as one on Wikipedia[edit]

When I created [[Template:Permalink]] I was unaware that Wikipedia uses a slightly different template with the same name. I needed what is currently the WV version in order to modify Wikiversity Journal of Medicine so as to freely include articles stored on other wikis. Should I change the name of Wikiversity's template {{Permalink}} so as to avoid confusion if anybody imports a template that needs the Wikipedia version? Or should I just let the two wikis drift apart?

FYI, here is my opinion: Just let the wikis drift apart; since the two wikis can link to each other so effortlessly, there is no reason to import templates so as to import text-- if you want to modify a WP article, just do so in your userspace and link to it. The fact that it is in your userspace can be obscured by making the word user: small in the title using {{DISPLAYTITLE:xxx}}, as in the title of Wikiversity_Journal_of_Medicine/The_Year_of_the_Elephant--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 04:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

One of the community requests from this past year was for Wikimedia to port templates to Commons so they could be shared the same way as files (images) are now. Sometime later this year that should be implemented. At that point we will need to start looking through our templates to figure out which ones need to be maintained locally, and which ones can use the common code. The common code is likely to be better maintained, faster, more flexible, etc.
Having a local version that is different won't be a technical problem, but it's also not an optimal solution. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I will try really hard to get to this task in a few days. Meanwhile, I will place a note on the template urging people not to use it. I only used it on one or two pages, and a quick copy/replace should allow me to upgrade. I am busy because my annual faculty report is due Monday. Ordinarily it's no big deal because I have tenure and nowhere near coming up for full. I am still nowhere near an application for full professorship, but am reaching the point where I will soon be asking for travel money to promote WV--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I really like the idea of shared templates. I can see needing exceptions for cases like speedy deletion where our local policy differs from other wikis and would require a custom template, but many or our templates could (and should) be replaced by a global. It would save us a lot of work. There is a great deal to be gained by having {{Cite journal}} consistent across projects from the perspective of consistency for usability by readers and editors on our site. --mikeu talk 16:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I will rename the template within 24 hours and modify the FJS wikitext to match the new name. Your position as a board member of the First Journal of Science renders you too powerful to have your wishes ignored. ;-).--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Lol! There's really no urgency. It will likely take months for this migration. I'd like to see the details of what they are proposing before making an effort to prepare for this. It might save a little work later if you check that a new template's name is not already taken by one heavily used elsewhere. --mikeu talk 21:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
YesY Done I looked at w:Template:Permalink with an eye to import it but saw such complexity that I dared not touch it. I obviously don't know much about templates. @Mu301:In a few hours I will go to a talk page somewhere inside First Journal of Science with a proposed action plan. It won't be anything that needs your immediate attention though, nor will it be anything scary, drastic, or weird.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about redirects[edit]

In the past I always treated redirects as temporary entities and tried to clean them up. But I changed the name of First Journal of Science (plus perhaps 8 subpages) to Second Journal of Science because the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine has an equal if not better claim to the title "First". The new name was selected primarily for the ease with which I use Search-Replace to accomplish the transition. Question: Is it OK to keep the redirects permanently since it is unlikely that "First Journal of Science" should ever be created (considering that this honor goes to Wikiversity Journal of Medicine)?--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's fine for now. At some point I hope to write a bot function that will look specifically for unused redirects. Those would be pages that have no incoming internal or sister links, and less than one view per day on average. The bot would then tag those redirects for deletion. The reason to eliminate unused redirects is they do clutter (and technically slow down) the search box. Used redirects are fine. Unused redirects have no value and some detriment. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A request for custodial status as a curator.[edit]

(original request used the wrong name)

@Mikael Häggström: wishes Curator status for Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I am willing to mentor him on the need to avoid overprotection. He is the current editor-in-chief of that journal. Each journal is different, but on Second Journal of Science I need one data page protected because well-intentioned efforts to correct mistakes could cause much confusion. I started to protect some other pages, but decided to wait for actual vandalism. Any thoughts?

I don't know if it is proper to take this into consideration, but Mikael has given me much free advice regarding these journals. I trust his judgement.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 21:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate your willingness to mentor by adding your name to Requests and Nominations for Curatorship/Mikael Häggström. --mikeu talk 22:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
As far as page protection goes... Many years ago we preemptively blocked nearly 15,000 IP addresses from editing Wikiversity just in case these Open Proxies might make disruptive contributions. With 20/20 hindsight I now regard this as an unproductive use of our time and the most likely outcome is that it discouraged participation in the project. I see that there are some rare cases in which it could be necessary to ensure that a project smoothly progresses, but I would recommend a "wait and see" attitude most of the time. Our project is not so overwhelmed by barbarian vandals climbing over the walls that we have difficulty pushing the undo or rollback buttons fast enough. I've had resource pages unprotected for several years with few, if any, instances of undesirable edits and was very pleasantly surprised at the number of useful edits. This page was linked from our main page featured projects (making it prime vandal bait) and it only had 3 instances of vandalism since Dec. 2006. I don't have a strong objection to occasional page protection but it sounds like a solution in search of a problem that we don't have. --mikeu talk 22:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree on both points. Add a nomination for curatorship. Mikael does good work and I don't expect anyone will object. But we also should not protect pre-emptively. I'm also not sure protection is the right approach for these resources. Flagged revisions might be a better option. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently evaluating Wikipedia's pending changes feature. The FlaggedRevs extension appears to be much more flexible and open than alternatives that I've seen. See User:Mu301/Learning_blog#Pending_changes for my first impressions. --mikeu talk 22:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
To add my anecdotal evidence, I once had over 1000 pages on my watchlist before I realized that I needed to clean up regularly. I almost never saw vandalism, and there were definitely more constructive edits by far.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Mu301: My understanding of flagged revisions is that changes are not visible to readers until they are approved. This might come in handy with a journal because several editors might be making changes, but only one needs the higher level privilege because all journals are "under construction" before each new issue is released. I now understand why you thought teachers might want it too.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
@Guy vandegrift: I've created (and vandalized) a simple test page at test wiki. I have not yet reviewed the edit so you will need to take a look at the diffs in the page history to find it. --mikeu talk 01:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw evidence of the vandalism from both my account, as well as from a sock account that is not a Custodian. The one thing I would have liked was to see the acutal page that cited Hewy, Dewie, and Louie. I only know them by by using compare selected revision. That is a minor inconvenience that I could live with. As I see it, the flagged protection is a step in the right direction.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that this page has "level 1" protection which allows any logged in editor to see the vandalism, but an ip would only see the accepted revision. (I did not realize that distinction for this page when I pointed it out to you yesterday.) I don't think this is useful for us as a class of students (logged in) would see the pending changes live. A "level 2" protection would have prevented both logged in users and anons from seeing those unapproved edits. Your custodian status does not transfer across wikis. Neither of your accounts has extended user rights on while my account is (only) flagged as Editor and Reviewer, but not Sysop. --mikeu talk 18:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see An essay on the philosophy and practice of the "wiki way". TL;DR - I feel that page protection should be very rarely used, and only with a reasonable expiry time. We should investigate how Flagged Revisions could be adapted to our specific needs. But, again, only in limited circumstances (temporary duration) where it really is necessary. --mikeu talk 20:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Level 1 heading bot[edit]

@Atcovi, Mu301, Dave Braunschweig:Two questions about Level 1 headings bot:

  1. I see you have a bot hard at working finding Level 1 headings. I will certainly correct the ones I created, and presume I should correct other's: They violate style guidlines as I understand. Right?
  2. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I couldn't see the Level 1 heading at Physics equations/Collection of equations. It has over 200 equation signs, but the __TOC__ doesn't seem to show a level 1 header. I don't think I use that page, and hope this summer to do a cleanup of Physics equations and perhaps remove that page. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me write something up this morning to explain the issue and a proposed solution. Then I'll post in the Colloquium so everyone can participate and we'll see where the discussion leads. Regarding Physics equations/Collection of equations, that was a false positive based on lines in math formulas that had = ... = in them. I'll need to refine the RegEx pattern used to identify the headings. Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Spambot need blocking[edit]

Ydaren, cross wiki spambot... No point in telling this user "no spam", since this is a cross wiki spammer. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

YesY Done - Certainly a cross-wiki spammer. Not sure there's enough evidence to call it s spambot. In fact, I'd say probably not, based on cross-wiki edit pattern. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)