Wikiversity:Notices for custodians/Archive/2

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nonkilling Political Science

We should probably have OTRS respond to this. --mikeu talk 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ticket 2009010110001148 has been created & I will follow up on this when they respond. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
We should probably also update Wikiversity:OTRS. --mikeu talk 01:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd simply make a soft redirect to m:OTRS. I don't really see the benefit of having a page specifically for Wikiversity.
The author of the work has released it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. I'm still trying to get it multi-licensed. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 17:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
See also Talk:Draft of a Working Paper for Education at Brown University‎ and the note on my talk page. I'm not sure who to contact, but the link to the internet archive had license info. --mikeu talk 01:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archived Wikiversity:Request custodian action

I archived via page move to keep the history smaller. Please make sure Wikiversity:Request custodian action is on your watchlist (as opposed to the archive). --SB_Johnny talk 13:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

attack of the clones

We've had three incidents where a bot has created empty pages and categories.

I've semi-protected some page titles that were recreated after deletion. The dynamic ips are in the range of: 208.100.192.0/18 There is a 3 day range block on 208.100.232.0/23 to prevent the bot from switching ips and continuing. --mikeu talk 17:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There was another incident from ips in the range 208.100.232.0/24 on 27 January 2009. --mikeu talk 04:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently the range block for 208.100.232/0/32 is for 1 day. Do you think we re-block 208.100.232.0/23 (to cover .232 and .233) maybe for 1 week? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and have made the change. I'll also check to see if we can semi-protect some of the nonsense page titles to make it easier to clean up if we get more after the block expires. --mikeu talk 12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, wv is not the only target of this. See

--mikeu talk 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: the current range block expires 07:13, 4 February 2009 --mikeu talk 00:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits from Blocked user

I've just reverted this edit, could anyone explain why the editor who was blocked for violating the Foundations privacy policy and other policies are still editing, even though the block imposed was an "office action" and the fact that they're bypassing the block?. DarkObsidian@en.Meta-Wiki 21:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uy. In a nutshell, I think most of the custodians got tired of reverting and/or blocking him. He's got all day, do you? --SB_Johnny talk 22:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in a nutshell, it is not the most productive use of our time. But if he continues to reinsert off-topic material that other editors have repeatedly reverted, you can drop a note here (or WV:RCA) to ask for a page to be semi-protected (only autoconfirmed can edit) for a time. Policy discussion pages should seek input from a diverse cross-section of the community and not be dominated by one contributer's w:Argumentum verbosium. The frequent posting of a large quanitity of off topic material is (IMO) likely discouraging participation by new or infrequent contributers in these forums. Most of the regulars in these discussions are already well aware of the material in his edits as it has already been posted in so many places, and reposting only makes the dialogue in the policy discussion difficult to read and respond to. The User:Moulton account is blocked from editing throughout wikimedia projects. To prevent someone from editing from an ip the only tools are a block of one ip, or a range block. It is rather easy to change to another ip if one address gets blocked. It is not in the best interests of wv to maintain a range block for an extended amount of time, as this prevents other people who use the same isp from contributing anonymously. If you'd like to get a broader range of opinions about this, you could start a section at WV:CR. --mikeu talk 16:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Please can we have this wiki become a "fishbowl" wiki, much like http://grants.wikimedia.org or http://wikimaniateam.wikimedia.org is - it would be much better for us all. --Fishbowl wiki 13:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fishbowl" wiki, and the links to not seem to describe the term. Could you please clarify what you are asking for. --mikeu talk 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Btp

The Btp template has been deleted. We'll need some help cleaning up the empty talk pages that were created. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Btp and please help out. --mikeu talk 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look since it was me who proposed the deletion of this template and these pages. http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Btp&hidelinks=1 is probably a better link to use since it only lists transclusions of this template. Adambro 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, and thanks for any help you could provide. There are over 100 pages that were created! --mikeu talk 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
YesY Done All of those that I saw only had this template so were all deleted. Adambro 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

candidate for custodianship

FYI, there is a request for probationary custodianship where User:Trinity507 is looking for a mentor. Please review the request and ask questions or comment. --mikeu talk 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A Japanese User

Please notice the edits of user:Kanjy Kanji (not to be confused with sysop User:Kanjy on ja:) [1] and related accounts. Such behaviour resembles that of user:藤原紀香 et. al. on betawikiversity:. Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 08:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

YesY Done userpage deleted and protected, user notified. --mikeu talk 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

repeat vandalism

Since 26 June 2009 we have a had a number of repeat vandals that have inserted explicit images into pages. They have also done this at other mediawiki sites. Many of these accounts are now globally locked. For example: [2]

It is probably best to treat future vandalism that matches the same pattern with an indef and autoblock enabled (Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IPs they try to edit from) to prevent the same ip from continuing with a newly created account. --mikeu talk 14:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Those are all covered by the rangeblock. Autoblock is a good idea for this sort of vandal, but if you notice another account doing the same thing within 24 hours, you need to get a CU involved. (Would be a lot easier if we had local CUs, of course!) --SB_Johnny talk 16:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It was convenient that you had CheckUser rights on Wikibooks to find out the range to block. (Bfbggon* just got done wreaking havoc there.)-- Adrignola 18:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup, same guy. Though actually what helped was being able to communicate clearly with the other CUs (mailing list and IRC channel), since it was a crosswiki issue. Would still be easier to have local CUs, but we can deal this way.
BTW Adrignola: since you're peeking at RCs here, how about becoming a custodian and help us cover our bases here ;-)? --SB_Johnny talk 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: this is still going on cross-wiki [3] so keep an eye out for this when the block expires in a month. --mikeu talk 15:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

We've had some grawp-like vandalism.

Please watch for further activity. --mikeu talk 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection, please

My userspace, recent low level trolling. Durova 19:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected your userpage and user talk for 6 months. Let us know if/when you want that changed. --SB_Johnny talk 22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Serial vandalism

We had a multiple vandalism from 68.52.42.38 (talk | email | contribs | stats) I have to tell that there was an effort to undo these vandalisms from the same/another user from the same IP address, but in order to stop the potential vandal I blocked this IP for 1 day. We'll see what happens. Please keep your eye on our friend and act if necessary. --Gbaor 10:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)