Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/12

page delete or move for School:Electronics to School:Electronic engineering
{{archive top|discussion stale, no custodian action requested (use speedy tag or WV:RFD to propose deletion}. Discuss changes to structure on resource talk pages. Involved close, revert if desired with explanation proposing custodian action other than deletion. --Abd 18:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)}} Ive been trying to repair some of the stuff on the School:Electronics page and as part of it tried to rename the page to School:Electronic engineering(this has been the title for a very long time). I discovered that School:Electronic engineering already existed as a redirect with history and i couldn't move it because of that. If possible when someone gets a chance can School:Electronic engineering be deleted and then School:Electronics be moved to it or School:Electronic engineering and School:Electronics have a history merge also moving both to School:Electronic engineering. Eadthem 18:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that there wouldn't ever be 2 separate schools of those names? History merges are practically impossible to undo. --SB_Johnny talk 11:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to me, as an electronics engineer of sorts, "Electronics" and "Electronics Engineering" are not exactly the same thing. Obviously, any electronics engineer needs to know electronics, but electronics is a matter of knowledge and engineering is practical application. If I had more time, I'd assist in figuring out what to do here, but I don't, at the moment. Page deletion and history merges, however, aren't likely to be part of the solution. Content can be merged, easily, as an ordinary editorial decision, through copy/paste, as long as there is a pointer, perhaps in an edit summary, to the original where contribution history can be found. --Abd 13:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my impression was that school:electronic engineering was originally moved/copy edited to what started the school:electronics page. going back the last time the page had a real page, it was just a directory/link page for the school. Are you saying it would be better to copy/edit move the page to school:electronic engineering and manually set school:electronics to a redirect. My reasoning for the move is simply that the title of the page and all content has always been school of electronic engineering or simply electronic engineering. In fact that is how all links to the page are piped as.Eadthem 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could move one, and then the other (switching places), if you think it's necessary. Otherwise I'd say just be comfortable to fix whatever you think needs fixing :-). --SB_Johnny talk 23:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW Topic:Electronic engineering was previously merged with School:Electronics. -- dark lama  00:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought of archiving this, but maybe it should sit for a bit. The only usage of custodial tools here would be deletion, which can be requested, if not controversial, with at the top of the page, or otherwise should be requested per Requests for deletion. --Abd 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

189.140.24.110

 * IP created Rafael M. Pedrajo, see page history. Removed speedy deletion tags. (allowed, my opinion). However, also removed RfD tag, also allowed, my opinion, the main purpose of that tag is not defeated by removal (author has been notified, perhaps). The IP blanked attempts to inform and discuss on the IP's talk page, without comment. That is also allowed, though it indicates lack of interest in cooperation.
 * However, the IP has now removed resource Talk page comment, and a source notice placed on the page to avoid copyvio.
 * Notice additional Mexican IP that removed a speedy tag., likely the same user.
 * There is a similar page creation by this IP at Commons (inappropriate), deleted twice. See Requests for deletion for deletion request here.
 * Please provide final warning and/or short block.
 * I will revert the two improper removals, once again, after notifying the IP of this request, but do not intend to continue. Custodian attention is now needed. --Abd 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notification of this request.
 * editor removed notice of source again ignoring Talk page requests and request embedded in text as a comment. --Abd 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See Requests for deletion. User not communicative, removed the reference to es.wikipedia, necessary for license compliance, and blanked the RfD page, and blanked resource Talk page discussion. A block may be necessary, efforts to develop cooperation have failed. --Abd 02:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Block?
The block has been done globally. Courcelles 09:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the speedy deletions are backed up about a fortnight. Anyone up for cleaning them out? Courcelles 09:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up; also blocked locally now although that's probably redundant. Have had a quick clean through some of the speed delete backlog, but more attention needed. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The original request was, for the record, an offensive username. Thanks, Courcelles. Custodians, please review Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, I considered that part of being a custodian, but we are short on custodial help at this time. If the page violates policy, please delete immediately. If it is clearly not an educational resource and not intended to be part of one, likewise. However, pages are often speedied that are arguably part of a course, past course, such as "homework," or are intended to build a resource. If there is any doubt about a deletion, the tag should be removed. (Note: custodians should not use RfD automatically, but allow a nominator to create the RfD, unless the custodian personally supports deletion and so argues. Sometimes I would notify a user and allow extra time, if the user was not already notified. It can be frustrating to review speedies, because sometimes the issues are difficult. That's a sign that it is not appropriate for speedy deletion, so the answer is to pull the tag, if there is any doubt. Reserve the category for obvious deletions, that's the point of it.
 * I will review the category and yank tags that I think marginal. That should make it a little easier for custodians. --Abd 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete Speedy deletions nominated by author, shown by Special:PrefixIndex/User:Icns141/Homework/. I have verified that the author, Icns141, is the last editor, that there were few other editors. Suggest load the pages, verify that speedy tag has not been removed, and delete as author request. --Abd 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Delete as above, same author, Special:PrefixIndex/User:Icns141/In-Class Active Quiz/. However, many pages have many editors. My opinion is that as a userspace page, pages created by the user in his or her space, being used in a class for purpose considered transient, the editor should be able to request deletion. I'd personally prefer that quizzes -- and answers! -- be left in place, but that could create other problems in situations that we know nothing about. I've verified that all pages have the user as the last editor, and, unless I missed something, all were still tagged for deletion, so, suggest deletion as above. --Abd 16:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That should seriously whack the apparent backlog. Thanks. --Abd 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass creation of articles by User:PCano
PCano has created a large number of articles, all of which seem to be suitable for speedy deletion.--Poetlister 12:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is some discussion here: User talk:PCano. I wonder if maybe there is a more suitable project for such genetic info - maybe ? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No custodian action required. This is not RfD or a speedy deletion page, unless there is conflict over deletion or seriously neglected tags or discussions. There was also discussion at the Colloquium. Poetlister, Wikiversity is not a collection of articles, it's a collection of educational resources. The massive creation is of subpages, one way of organizing material; whether this is the best way or not depends on how the material is to be used. If I'm correct, he plans to use, or is using, categories to cross-link information, that's why subpages instead of lists or tables. If it is being done incorrectly, in your view, please discuss it with the author, please don't pull in custodians unless there is a behavioral dispute or policy violation. "Out of scope," if that's what you believe, would be a question for RfD, in which case you would want to ask for deletion of the top-level resource, HLA, not the myriads of subpages underneath. But don't, it would be a waste of time. This is a real academic doing real academic work here, please respect that.
 * Jtneill, it is possible that the information might be moved elsewhere, but this is a good place for it to be collected, pending. That's an academic function, appropriate for Wikiversity. It might also eventually go to Wikibooks. --Abd 15:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Group of spammy/socky users
Shortly after midnight (GMT) four users created accounts within 20 minutes of each other. They have each put similar spammy material on two different talk pages, and three of the names are very similar.

The first three posted on User talk:Toddst1 while the latter posted on their own talk page. Hope this helps. Gaidheal1 12:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * HappyCamper and I have blocked the toddst accounts. --Draicone (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User creates spammy user page
✅

appears to have created their userpage with a massive list of keywords (presumably), seems to consider Wikiversity a place to spam (or has no idea how to attract the opposite sex - see 'I love women' at the end!) Gaidheal1 20:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, seems like a large list of spammy keywords with a "personal" top and tail. Have speedy deleted as Vandalism/Nonsense. User can recreate a sensible user page if he/she wishes. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Pepboys seems to be just spam.Leutha 11:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedied. --Draicone (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive user, vandal, please block ASAP
✅ User blocked. Impersonating user page deleted. See

Impersonating and vandalizing User:Poetlister, offensive username. --Abd 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actioned, although I'm a bit late here. --Draicone (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, no problem. If the vandalism had continued, I'd have gone to meta for quick action. Thanks for acknowledging this here. --Abd 20:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Arabic WV to the mainpage
Are the links for other language WVs only for languages which have their own site, or should other languages that exist on Beta be included as well? Anyways, there is a request here: Wikiversity talk:Main Page. Devourer09 ( t · c ) 20:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good request. There are some other design review requests on the main page discussion.  174.63.86.33 15:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the current design, I think only languages which have their own site are listed on the main page. -- dark lama  15:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ by Darklama . --Abd 15:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Potential sock user
In relation to the 'Group of spammy/socky users' section above, is claiming to be Toddst1, and has posted their intent to disrupt Wikiversity. Abd has removed the post on the Notices for Custodians page. Gaidheal1 19:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I have just noticed that four users with almost identical names created accounts within four minutes of each other.

The last has posted creative, but unpleasant, content on their user page.

Gaidheal1 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've speedy deleted the "creative, but unpleasant" (ASCII art) content at User:HiFre4 as vandalism/nonsense. Per Jtneill below, user can recreate if they wish to use their user page productively. --Draicone (talk) 13:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually more concerned that they seemed to be rather obviously have been created by one person. But if you're happy just to leave it until (if ever) they start participating in sock-like behaviour, then I'm content. In future, if I see such user pages, and also ones like the page I posted about below, I'll just stick a delete template on it. --Gaidheal1 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity does not prohibit socking, per se, if it is not disruptive. However, creating many accounts for no apparent useful educational purpose doesn't leave us thrilled. On User:Hilkia9o, my "removal" action was this, reverting as vandalism, which may not be technically correct (it was a notice of intent to disrupt, coupled with a false representation of identity).
 * Pseudo-Toddst1 socks are disruptive block evasion and should be treated as such, with reversion, immediate blocks, and range blocking if required. See for the first report and actions taken. --Abd 16:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey all. I came here to tell you that those last 3 are confirmed as the same, as well as some others. --Bsadowski1 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Draicone (talk) 10:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 3
User has been nominated and mentorship offered. A 'crat is needed to activate custodianship. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not pressing any buttons without more activity here. Especially not for this particular candidate-mentor pairing, because of what happened last time (no offense to either of you). Mike or Cormac might be more amenable, but you'll probably need to email them because they're both inactive these days. --SB_Johnny talk 00:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given how clear the policy is -- that CR shows no sentiment for actually changing the policy -- it would be simpler to go to meta and ask for a steward to approve. "What happened last time" was a complicated can of worms, and is extremely unlikely to repeat, plus I've agreed to a Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement which is a more formal version of what I'd more informally agreed to before. I'd rather not open that can, but, if needed, I will, because my actions were proper, as confirmed by later events. --Abd 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Policy", in this case (as in several other cases) was declared without any serious discussion. We've tried to work with it as-is over the years, but the "can-of-worms" you mention made the "policy's" weakness abundantly clear (and you bear very little fault for that). I've changed the template to reflect the policy's questionable status, since you've already (again!) hinted that you wish to "go to the stewards" rather than allow for organic process here on WV. --SB_Johnny talk 01:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SBJ, precedent is clear that if no 'crat responds to a request, that stewards may be asked. I did it before, nobody objected. As to your edit of the page, changing a policy to a proposed policy, when the policy stood, apparently without challenged, since 12 February 2007, made my jaw drop. I'll revert that. This is not the way to challenge a standing policy! --Abd 01:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody objected to what, exactly? As noted elsewhere, the pedigree of this "policy" is questionable, since there has never been a full discussion of it. Asking the stewards to re-start a mentorship that was broken up by community action would really not be helpful, Abd. We've had quite enough of going to the stewards to get around things over the past year. --SB_Johnny talk 13:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Status of this request At this point, we have an open candidacy with an agreed mentor. Per well-established procedure, any 'crat may implement the custodianship. No 'crat is obligated to do so. 'Crats are not robots, and if any 'crat is uncomfortable, it is a safeguard in the system that the 'crat is not obligated to act. There are now three options, and neither I nor Jtneill are in a rush, so these options have not been followed, but they are listed here.
 * 1) Specifically request other 'crats, who may not be aware of the request, to review it for action.
 * 2) Request a steward implement local policy in the absence of local 'crat action. This was done before, by me, in fact, when Jtneill's 'cratship sat with no action for a long time, simply due to local 'crat inattention. This is not disruptive in any way, it is not "getting around things." SB_Johnny's comment would seem to indicate that he believes he has veto power. He does, he has a pocket veto, and that kind of veto is completely legitimate. However, his pocket veto still allows other alternative actions and alternative requests.
 * 3) Request another custodian mentor. In that event, Jtneill would probably push the button. Any custodian who wishes to consider this should review Candidates for Custodianship/Abd 3 and choose. My binding agreement to the Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement should make this completely safe, but arguments over my suitability for custodianship should not be here, they should be on the candidacy page. This option, which may be followed up with some specific requests, is the simplest one, and that's why this is bolded and on this page.
 * 4) Withdraw the candidacy. Almost every day, I see occasions for uncontroversial use of custodial tools. When these are important, I request -- and get -- action. I know how to serve the community consensus, and I know how to avoid recusal failure, and am dedicated to both, so this would be a shame. I intend to pursue the other options first, within policy and procedure and the welfare of the wiki. --Abd 15:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please delete the page of Boubaker Polynomials immediately
Please delete the page of the so-called Boubaker Polynomials, they are copied from Chebyshev polynomials by an undergraduate Arab fellow in lack of notability.

You can verify there that there are only 2 meaningless sources, no coverage and no reliable sources.

Thank you for understanding --Popo Le Chien 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. Wikiversity is not an encyclopedia, and the material there may be useful for learning. Please try to improve the page, especially if you are knowledgeable. I see that you blanked a large amount of material. Please don't do that without discussion, and it might be better to move the material to a subpage. Discuss any major changes on the Talk page. First, however, I suggest becoming familiar with Wikiversity and how we work. If you want to have a page deleted, and if the reason is obvious, you can place a speedy deletion tag and if a custodian agrees with you, it can be deleted. But I don't think any custodian here would delete that page, it would be too controversial. Beyond that, you may request deletion at RFD. Again, it would be a waste of time, please see Deletion policy for a discussion of deletion and alternatives. Thanks. --Abd 18:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: At this point I believe that the user filing this request is an impersonator, see the user's Talk page. I have indef blocked the user pending further investigation. --Abd 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Account confirmed as impersonator, globally locked. --Abd 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Inviting review of my RevDel actions today
I've been clerking the user rename page, and came across a request to rename and block a user. Investigating, it came to seem likely to me that the requestor's real name was that of the target user account. That user account had apparently been deleted by a steward (I've not found the log yet, but I'm going to go to meta to see if I can find anything on this.) Because the renaming request effectively outed the user making the request, I decided to hide it. Unfortunately, because of the long delay in responding to rename requests, that meant hiding many revisions. I also deleted three pages of the user. There is a standing resource that was apparently created by this user.

There is a page which provides some background, User:White Fennec/Save. I redacted it to remove the problem user name.

Details of the history, implications
The original appears to be from fr.wikiversity requests for sysop action, similar to what we saw here. It's been hidden there, including harmless edits, probably because of that user name being shown, but perhaps for other reasons. See an original request, which refers to the Wikipedia deletion discussion that ultimately deleted the article there. the history of that admin request page, see August 12-16. The revdel action, citing the requestors for suppression. From the en.wiki deletion discussion, this kind of work should be quite welcome on the Wikiversities. It looks like it got personal elsewhere, spilling over onto the 'versity wikis.

The apparent impersonation is not acceptable, that's why I've so vigorously scrubbed this, but in the other direction, I see some "Wikipedian hysteria" here, where Wikipedians become, as it were, enemies of a content position, even if not in a 'pedia. That enmity damages the 'pedias, in my opinion, but it is totally out of place here. The article in question is Boubaker Polynomials --Abd 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Block request for vandalism-only account
Please block for being a vandalism-only account. It's a new incarnation of the "Hunter Mariner" case. Mathonius 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. blocked. Hunter Mariner deleted. Specific video page spam-blacklisted. Thanks, Mathonius, for your assistance with Wikiversity. --Abd 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please block as well. Thanks, Mathonius 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. The accounts have now been globally locked, though. This was part of a massive sock farm, fairly old, apparently newly fired up. --Abd 05:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

71.249.226.126
Please consider blocking for consistend vandalism, such as. Mathonius 13:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Already blocked by Dungodung for 1 day. Mathonius 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (Block was for 24 hours.) I will watch this IP range. Thanks. --Abd 15:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A temporary steward block - confirmed locally and extended to one week. --Draicone (talk) 03:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Abd 20:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Spam-only accounts
The following accounts are spam-only accounts (both non-sul): "Celery" has already been blocked on meta and en.wikipedia. "Deng" and "Zing852741" were created on this project. Their editing behaviour is identical, as they're both replacing content with spam (see this diff). Please consider blocking these accounts, or at least keep an eye on them. Kind regards, Mathonius 05:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC) some additions at 05:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * First two users blocked, various pages speeded. Does the third user appear to be a sock of the first two? The similarity wasn't as clear in the pages I speedied so I've held off on a block. Thanks for your report. --Draicone (talk) 06:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the blocks and deletions. I'm not completely sure if the third account belongs to this group... but I've requested a CU investigation. Mathonius 06:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

According to CU investigation, the following accounts are related: "Celery" and "Deng" do not belong to this group. Mathonius 07:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Zing with an associated IP block (which should catch the socks), and deleted another page created by one of the socks which I presume you tagged for speedy. Thanks for following up with the CU. --Draicone (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mathonius' work here is highly appreciated. --Abd 15:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mathonius is now also a probationary custodian, so this user may directly block and delete as appropriate. --Abd 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

undo a rename
Somebody can undo the rename that I do on What Wikiversity is not. Sorry. Crochet.david 16:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thanks for all you do here, David :-). --SB_Johnny talk 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright review of contributions by marshallsumter

 * Note: unclosed, this needs more eyes than just Abd's. --SB_Johnny talk 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A recent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Marshallsumter_disrupting_Wikipedia_for_.22research.22_purposes. review of Wikipedia articles created by Marshallsumter] resulted in many people believing that his articles were all patchwork copyvios. Some of them do seem to be collections of sections, somewhat arbitrarily sequenced, each of which is composed only of full quotes from copyright publications. Some do not seem to make sense at the paragraph level. (An earlier discussion of this style of writing addressed some of the problems with it.)

The user has since copied some of those articles here to Wikiversity in their entirety. These articles do seem to stretch the bounds of fair use, though it's not clear to me where one should draw the line between extensive fair use and copyright violation. As the articles were deleted out of copyright concerns on English Wikipedia, which is generally friendly to fair use, the concerns raised bear review here as well. I am personally on the fence about whether this use is appropriate. –SJ + > 04:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If it's okay for me to comment here, I would like to add that I will be more than happy to remove any content here per consensus or individual concerns. The last thing I want is a repeat of what happened at Wikipedia. Further, I am willing to place content for research projects or topics of educational value where ever is considered appropriate for review. Marshallsumter 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Marshall, if these articles were edited by people other than you, they should really be imported over (which will keep the contribution history. This will require undeletion on the WP side at this point, but I'm an admin there too so I can do that if you give me a list of the source pages and the current page name on WV. I'll have to ask our friends at WP for help on the copyvio issues though, since I have only limited time to devote. --SB_Johnny talk 23:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to move this to your user talk page, which is where this should have started in the first place. Custodian action is not the last stop for a dispute resolution train, but it should be down the tracks. Sj, I invite you to participate there, and, Marshall, your cooperative attitude will work wonders. Congratulations. --Abd 18:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

✅. Sj began discussion on user talk page, and Marshallsumter has fully cooperated, as far as can be seen so far. There is no request for action here. There are issues to be discussed, at this point on user talk, with clear directions for resolution, and there are some policy issues raised where Wikiversity has no clear policy. But this is not the page for that, it's for requesting custodian action. Given that discussion is taking place elsewhere, it should not be forked here. Thanks. --Abd 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio on Oracle Databases
I've tagged Oracle Databases as copyvio. The tag only supported one URL, but so far I've identified that much of the content was taken from and, although I'm finding a couple of others which look like probable sources for most of the rest. - Bilby 05:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- i.e., Handled. Investigating copyvio can be tricky. Because of the likelihood that Bilby is correct, I have blanked the page pending investigation, with a note on the page explaining this. I have no time to follow up at this point. If there are substantial chunks of text that are duplicated elsewhere, the history of the other material might be checked; I have seen this result from copying from Wikipedia or perhaps Wikiversity. I've seen no evidence re the licensing, if any, of the other material. Until we know definitively, and until we attempt to rescue and distinguish non-copyvio from copyvio, the page should not be deleted, as far as I can tell. I hope that we don't have to have an RCA request for every problem that pops up. Bilby notified the editor, today. That editor is inactive, though, this page was his last edit, over a year ago. Bilby, or any editor, could have done what I did. --Abd 18:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was following the process outlined at Copyright issues - tag, notify Custodians here, and (although it wasn't stated in the process) notify the author. In this case, the page consists almost entirely of text lifted from copyrighted sources (with a small amount taken from WP), there was one editor, and the copyright violations were foundational. On those grounds I've nominated it for speedy deletion. It would need to be completely rewritten to remove the copyrighted material, and as it was foundational, that content cannot be removed from the history without deleting the page as a whole. - Bilby 21:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've speedily deleted it as a copyright violation. As far as I can see, almost all the content was copied and pasted from copyright sources. --S Larctia 13:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - it was a tad too blatant to have anything worth saving. - Bilby 07:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Block request
Please consider blocking user 71.249.226.126 because of repeated vandalism. Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Trijnstel 20:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've given the IP a final warning - if s/he makes another disruptive edit, I'll block for a week. Thanks. -- Simone 20:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP already has a block log with two entries: one day by a steward, confirmed at a week by Draicone, 13 September. The IP continued with heavy and disruptive vandalism, revert warring over removals. Talk page warnings are not necessary for such vandals (but the block log should be explicit). I've blocked for a month this time. --Abd 01:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd, in what way is this block necessary ? Blocks exist to stop disruption of Wikiversity. The IP stopped making disruptive edits as soon as I gave the warning, and there's no need to block it again unless more vandalism occurs. IP blocks can affect more than one person, so they shouldn't be treated so lightly. I frankly consider your threat of indefinitely blocking the IP rather worrying. Inserting jokes into pages may be a nuisance, but there's no need to be heavy-handed. It would be nice if you notified the IP of the block as well. I've reduced the length of the block to a week. Please do not revert administrative decisions by me in the future - you are free to discuss whether my decisions are appropriate with me, and I probably would have blocked the IP if you had suggested it. Thanks. -- Simone 06:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Simone, that's wheel-warring, you had not made an "administrative decision," i.e., involving use of sysop tools. I did, in order to stop the waste of time for global RCP and stewards, and you altered it without prior discussion or emergency. I'm not going to change that. I don't wheel-war, period. Have you reviewed the history of this IP?
 * Contrary to what you imply, I notified the IP of the block. This IP has vandalized Wikiversity for over a year, same articles, apparently stable IP. The IP was already blocked for a week last month by Draicone, and returned to vandalism, again revert warring with global RCP, this is not ordinary drive-by vandalism. Escalating blocks when disruption does not stop is standard practice. It's not "heavy-handed," and there is no apparent collateral damage. "More than one person?" There has never been a positive edit from this IP. I allowed Talk page access and watchlisted the talk page just in case someone else acquires the IP in the future and has a problem. If this were a registered user, we'd have indeffed, probably last month. --Abd 12:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I see it, it's not wheel-warring on my part. My decision not to use tools was an administrative decision. However, I really didn't adequately review the situation originally (especially per Darklama's comment below - I didn't check the user's contributions far enough), and my response to you was incivil. Apologies. I've reinstated your original block of the IP. You can find further comments here. -- Simone 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The associated hostname suggests a static address from a major ISP. A Google search suggests the IP was compromised up to at least 3 months ago, and maybe is still. -- dark lama  13:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Bestdealsonpaydayloansonline
Please block this user and delete all pages they have created, which are spam. Adrignola 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Crosswiki spam
Hi everyone. Please delete User:AliciaLearlici and User:Netanelpedroza. Those pages are created by a crosswiki vandal (see here). There may be more socks. Trijnstel 17:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ It would be better if the global sysops and stewards dealt with these in the future, IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 20:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For global sysops to act here, you will need to make a vote and then we can enable the global sysops here. As a steward, I've also done a block recently. Would probably be good to opt-in for you. -Barras 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case is was somebody adding spam pages in what I'm pretty sure was Polish(?), so we're really not equipped to deal with it ;-). --SB_Johnny talk 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should set policy and procedure for it. The actions should not be controversial, and I believe that the global sysops and stewards understand the difference between support and interference, from what I've seen. The only issue I can see is that sometimes "spam" can be or can become good-faith contributions. "Vandalism" may represent a very young user (and Wikiversity can accommodate these, sometimes, diverting them into harmless and educational activities, from editing wikis where more sophistication is required). Quickly stopping serious vandalism and blatant spam, however, are positive values. --Abd 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See above :-). If it's an account (or IP) that's just robotically spamming random WMF wikis, it's really better if the people who watch out for those things (global sysops and stewards) can just whack it on sight, rather than going through a silly bureaucracy of asking us to do it.
 * Describing what we want our friends from the crosswiki space to be able to do would be a very good topic for a CR, IMO. --SB_Johnny talk 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)