Jump to content

Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance

Add topic
Page move-protected
From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:Vandalism in progress)
Latest comment: 19 minutes ago by Codename Noreste in topic Help with Consensus
ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Upload | Permissions Bulletin Board

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.

URBANTEAMHOME reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam, Special:AbuseLog/308831 MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Codename Noreste (discusscontribs) 15:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

~2025-35226-76 reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Long-term abuse. Special:CentralAuth/Left_page, Special:CentralAuth/Delete_this_page_redirect_main_page. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 16:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems blockedKittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 19:56, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Francois Mommens reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems DoneKittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 13:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Vizioncx reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

DoneKittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 13:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Safrin123 reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam, Special:AbuseLog/308929 MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

DoneKittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 13:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

~2025-37954-89 reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Vandalism MathXplore (discusscontribs) 13:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Blocked by Atcovi. Codename Noreste (discusscontribs) 16:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Junohayes reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam, Special:AbuseLog/308966 MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Codename Noreste (discusscontribs) 15:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Kunal koko reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam, Special:AbuseLog/308954 MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MathXplore:  Not done, see Kunal koko's user discussion page. Codename Noreste (discusscontribs) 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Beautifulmindhealth reported by MathXplore

[edit source]

Spam/advertising-only account MathXplore (discusscontribs) 12:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

DoneKittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 13:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Help with Consensus

[edit source]

Circling back around to a previous thread I had started regarding the WB:AI draft. Could some admins who have not been as involved as I have been take a look at the discussion and help assess what the consensus is so we can move forward with at least preliminary implementation? I think @Leaderboard indicated that a minority opposition does not affect consensus, but I wasn't certain about the implications there. Since it's been open for a long time, I think it would be good to take some official action. Thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

"a minority opposition does not affect consensus". And this is important. You'll almost always have some kind of opposition. (pinging @MarcGarver and @Atcovi explicitly) Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 05:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Leaderboard thank you! Are you able to take a look at the discussion and give me your admin take on what consensus is? I'm fairly certain there is general consensus that LLMs may not be used to generate content, but I'd like outside opinions as well before I take any admin actions to solidify policy. Pinging @JJPMaster and @Codename Noreste too as some other highly active admins to get their opinions. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 13:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Kittycataclysm, which thread at Wikibooks talk:Artificial Intelligence are you describing? Codename Noreste (discusscontribs) 15:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply