OLPC talk:Vandalism

Revision as of 23:51, 27 May 2008 by Leejc (talk | contribs) (nonsense added)
Jump to: navigation, search

XO Korea

What's up with XO Korea/business content and its many subpages? 19:01, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

This was all contributed by one of our great early contributors... it has definite utility, it just is an unfinished project... I think it's okay where it is (aside from the way it overweights use of the special:random page :) --Sj talk 10:19, 24 April 2008 (EDT)


Here's an edit I just reverted by user It was particularly egregious in that co-opted a redirect to the Main page.

Would such observations be best posted to OLPC_talk:Administrators or here? I also posted this to Leejc because I've seen that he takes a keen interest in such matters.

Regards Cjl 13:43, 28 March 2008 (EDT)


Two IPs listed on this page http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Talk:OLPC_Mongolia/Ulaanbaatar/index.php&action=history

should be looked into. The "index.php" part and posting to a talk page of an article that doesn't really exist at that location is a familiar pattern. Cjl 14:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

index.php and nastiness

http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=Home/index.php&action=history Cjl 02:07, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Subtle, but still questionable (talk · contribs) at http://wiki.laptop.org/index.php?title=The_OLPC_Wiki/index.php&action=history Cjl 13:57, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

maybe, maybe not

  • I'm really less than sure about this one, but it might merit a look by someone. Cjl
Pretty sure it was Chinese link spam; we've gotten similar before. Deleted, thanks! —Joe 00:07, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
That's what I thought too, it looked a lot like stuff in the delete logs from a while back. Cjl 00:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

nonsense added

Simply in need of guidance?

The content on Microprocessor definitely belongs over in User space, not Main. Is "Microprocessor" is too important a concept to leave this page alone? It reads more like someone in need of guidance and not necessarily a vandal, but the previous question remains to be answered. Cjl 15:09, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

You could leave the user a comment about moving it to user space; then if it hasn't happened after a while, to move it yourself with another note. Definitely guidance more than vandalism, when there's a question. --Sj talk 10:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

More index.php suspects

Note: For these index.php offenders, the only change they make is the creation of the page. If you delete the page, please also block the user, ideally with a link to the page as the block reason. Otherwise it is hard for others to find the reason to block the user, because deleted pages no longer show up on their contribution history.

Link spam

Page blanker

one-character vandals?

I caught a one-character typo vandal today, which reminded me a bit like a few other odd minor vandalism edits. I wonder if there are people sporadically testing this (and perhaps other popular) wikis, as a simpler version of the random-string spammers.. --Sj talk 10:16, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

user template

Note: you can use {{user|name/ip}} to get an easier-to-use rundown of a user's contribs.


Perhaps you could consider semi-protecting this page, no anonymous edits, I don't want to fight/lose an edit war with the page blanking bot that has a thing for this page. I can see no valid reason for blanking, it has i18n template info I'm interested in using at some point. Cjl 23:01, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Seventh time rescue, pretty, pretty please consider semi-protect. Cjl 17:53, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
OK, it should be locked to unregistered users now. Thanks —Joe 22:29, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, I really believe semi-protection is merited in this case. It will be interesting to see if the bot moves to another page :-( Cjl 23:08, 13 May 2008 (EDT)