Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance
|General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books||General | Technical | Administrative||Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming|
|To request a rename or usurpation, go to the renaming requests page to file a request.
Please do not post those requests here!
Welcome to the Administrative Assistance reading room. You can request assistance from administrators for handling a variety of problems here and alert them about problems which may require special actions not normally used during regular content editing. Please be patient as administrators are often quite busy with either their own projects or trying to perform general maintenance and cleanup.
You can deal with most vandalism yourself: fix it, then warn the user. If there is repeated vandalism by one user, lots of vandalism on a single page, or vandalism from many users, tell an admin here, or in #wikibooks (say
!admin to get attention).
For more general questions and assistance that doesn't require an administrator, please use the Assistance Reading Room.
- @QuiteUnusual: If you need another admin on en.wb I can do it. Where I'm an admin, all I do is maintenance work anyway. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Don't be sorry, help in dealing with this kind of editor is always appreciated - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I have found that User:D contains vandalism, reading "FNORD!"
- It looks as if that page was actually created by User:D when not logged in. Their user page on some other sisters has the same content and was created while logged in. The user page here was created in 2004, and User:D did some editing here in 2007 and 2008 so had the opportunity to object but did not object. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying to sort out this new book over the page few days including moving pages created in the wrong place, fixing typos and formatting and adding categories. Most pages contain lots of typos but then I noticed that the few pages without typos seem to have been copy and pasted from other sites. I have tagged the pages I've found so far and I have left notices on the editors' talk pages and the talk page for the main page of the book. I think we should keep an eye on edits to this book...--ЗAНИA talk 12:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked three repeat copyright offenders and deleted all their contributions as all show evidence of similar violations. I am going to protect the main book page to prevent edits and require the coordinator / editors to engage in a conversation about their behaviour as we have so far failed to get any slow down in the copyright violations. If they won't engage I suggest we delete the whole book as suspect. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have hardblocked the IPs that are in use, protected the book main page and am now cleaning up all the violations. The hardblock is to prevent the continual addition of new material (at about 30 bad edits an hour) while I do the clean-up. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to suggest the book is nuked. I have spent four hours reviewing every page and the hit rate for copyright violations is > 90%. Given this I don't feel we should waste volunteers' time on continually trying to get the editors to engage in a discussion about their behaviour - let's delete it and continue to delete and block until they engage or stop. Thoughts? QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also note I have a claim by one user to have been sharing accounts (see User talk:Erashuthakur) which is also a violation of the site license as it prevents attribution. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I totally favour QU's suggestion. I was worrying that I was getting a bit paranoid about copyright (which according to an essay on Meta, is something we should avoid) but tbh I've had enough. Only one user has ever replied to my messages.--ЗAНИA talk 23:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have an email claiming to be from the course instructor - the language in the email suggests it isn't a student as it is much better. They apologise, promised to deal with the issues with the students and asked for an unblock of the IP. Meanwhile the students have targeted my talk page to add their copyright violations - given that I'm inclined to leave it hard blocked as clearly they are unable to participate in a good faith manner. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also the course instructor posted an unblock or edit request somewhere (I think it was wrongly created in a template) but I can't find it now. I have deleted one more page today and marked another as a copyvio. I am going to post messages on users' talk pages when I see them edit requesting that they read the book's talk page and add their name to the list at the bottom of the page saying they're read the notices, promise not to add copyvio material again and understand that they will be blocked and their pages deleted if they do so. Only after they've added their name to the list should we allow them to edit. So far nobody has done so. It seems that people in this book are only willing to communicate after you've deleted their work or blocked them. I also feel that they haven't spent the time trying to understand the project - naming pages correctly, using appropriate templates, signing comments and replying to messages people leave them. I would vote in favour of nuking the book.--ЗAНИA talk 18:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Somewhat reluctantly I have unblocked the university's IP addresses and unprotected the book - this is a "last chance" for the students. If the same problems reoccur I will nuke the book based on this discussion. I have also checked and restored one page where the student confirmed the source was Wikipedia (and I've done the history merge for the attribution). Before restoring other pages, can administrators please be sure to check copyright violations are not endemic... Thanks - QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds OK. We also need them to understand that we are now allowing them to edit the book again and this doesn't necessarily mean that their deleted work will be reinstated as some of them seem to believe. Thanks.--ЗAНИA talk 10:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well obviously they aren't getting the message as Fluid Mechanics Applications/B45: Fully Developed Flow Through Pipes was once again created as an exact copy from http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/math/MEK4450/h11/undervisningsmateriale/modul-5/Pipeflow_intro.pdf - the same as before the blocks. I have re-blocked, deleted and informed the instructor. I've also gone through the contributions I didn't review originally and removed another 10 or so historic violations. The thing is, even if it wasn't illegal, they surely should know that you don't get marks in an assessment by just copying other people's work?! QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also surprised as the university these students are studying at has a very fine reputation. I remember taking part in a competition against them and they were considered to be the MIT (USA) or UMIST (UK, my uni) of India.--ЗAНИA talk 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Request block of IP user
My request is regarding this edit. At first glance, it would seem overkill to block based on one edit, but Geolocation indicates the ISP is a government office. It would seem that governments and their employees would know better than to commit intentional vandalism. Gzuufy (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- The edit was made some hours ago and was a lone act of vandalism so I doubt blocking the IP address will have any affect. I have warned the user accordingly. A government IP address could include so many people including schools, hospitals and other departments all with open access. I note that the trace shows it being Dudley Council which may well be town wifi accessible to thousands of people.--ЗAНИA talk 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/220.127.116.11 should be banned
This user is not only an IP address , but has done vandalism on a banned user's talk page , so he/she is either a spam bot or a direct copy of a banned user. --Leaderboard 07:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)