Wikiversity:Request custodian action
 |
Welcome
Wikiversity support staff are trusted users who have access to technical features (such as protecting and deleting pages, blocking users, and undoing these actions) that help with maintenance of Wikiversity.
|
| Custodian requests | Entries |
|---|---|
| Purge cache | |
| Edit protected page | 0 |
| Speedy deletion | 6 |
| Expired prods | 0 |
| Unblock requests | 0 |
| Possible copyvio | 0 |
| History merge | 0 |
Vandalism etc. Please also check deleted edits. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 06:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Done Blocked for a week. I looked at the deleted contributions and they didn't seem like something to escalate. Maybe there's something I'm missing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Vandalism etc., targeted page has been semi-protected. I will also note that an IP range including this one is already blocked from enwiki per vandal/spam etc. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion to archive 2023 closed RCA requests
If there are no further comments to these threads, I guess these can be archived, what do our custodians think about this? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 06:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Support —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Request to move image files to Commons
I got this request to move files from Category:NowCommons and Category:Files from USGS. I delete lots of files, but usually let others delete image files because of my ignorance of copyright laws. I also have contributed a lot of files to Commons, but almost all of it is my own work. So I am out of my comfort zone on this. I don't even understand why these files should be moved.
@MGA73: Maybe we can find someone with more expertise on file transfers here on Request custodian action.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In a related vein, due to my inexperience with copyright regulations, perhaps it would be better if someone else processed the following files. All are up for speedy deletion. And all seem like quality images and/or on potentially high quality WV resources.
-
-
Not used on Wikiversity
- My request was primary to delete files that was moved to Commons allready. But if anyone have checked files they are of course very welcome to move files to Commons too. Same with Category:Files from Flickr. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Hooglimkt (again)
@Koavf: After the last report (Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/Archive/25#Special:Contributions/Hooglimkt), the user has restarted same types of edits. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done But what is the action here? He just wrote a bunch of Portuguese stuff on his userpage. What needs to be done? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- They are writing non-English advertisements on someone else's userpage, how can this be allowed? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please compare the reported user and Special:CentralAuth/Hoogli (user whose userpage is targeted), they don't look like the same user. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry--I got the usernames confused. Yes, that is inappropriate and he's not here for constructive purposes. Sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
According to WV:IU, this username is not acceptable (implying bot), should this account be blocked? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already sent a welcome and {{uw-username}} (imported from enwiki). MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think explicitly saying that you're not a bot is acceptable, but I agree that it's probably not ideal. E.g. someone could have the username "NotAReet" and run a bot under this name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Call for rewriting WV:UNC
This agenda is suggested at Wikiversity_talk:Username#WV:UNC needs updates, since this is related to policy documentation, I would like to have the attention of our custodians. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Please import MediaWiki editnotice pages from enwiki
We already have Template:Editnotice load and their sub-templates, but since we don't have MediaWiki:Editnotice-0, MediaWiki:Editnotice-1, MediaWiki:Editnotice-2, MediaWiki:Editnotice-3 etc., we cannot use the editnotice feature. Since I do not have permissions to edit MediaWiki namespace and make imports to this namespace, I request custodians to import these MediaWiki editnotice pages. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Xwiki vandalism, making bad pages at here. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible vandalism and xwiki abuse. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Possible vandalism (Massive enwiki copies with MOS issues), seems to be related to the recently reported IP, please consider range block. All targeted pages are semi-protected. Reverted revisions seem to be enwiki copies, please also consider revision deletion if needed. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 03:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- (Note) Currently stale, will report again if they come back. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
XWA including Wikiversity, targeted pages are semi-protected. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 07:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Already
- —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Making problematic pages with bad titles, possible xwa (please see global contributions). MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Already
Spam, I already semi-protected the targeted page. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 09:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Scope of talk page usage for blocked users
I understand that the scope of talk page usage for blocked users is aimed at unblocking requests and relevant discussions. I would like to ask if Wikiversity has more exceptions accepted by the community. I'm asking this because I recently found special:diff/2602322, and this does not seem to be related to an unblocking request. If unacceptable, custodians may need to remove talk page access from the user. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Please review recent edits at Wikiversity:Verifiability
Recently we had many changes to this documentation. Reverting undiscussed changes would be non-controversial, but I'm not sure about the others. What would our custodians think about these edits? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Each of my edit has an explanation/rationale in the edit summary. Here a summarization: I above all removed sentences that presented a contradiction within the same page. I also switched the page to policy proposal away from policy since I could not find a discussion establishing the page as a policy and since, given the contradictions before my edits, the page could not have been taken seriously as a policy, that is, a set of rigid rules contrasting to guidelines. I could have discussed the changes somewhere first, but since the changes are well documented in their edit summaries, I hoped they could remain. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the original version (before recent efforts) can be found at Special:Permalink/1375824. Regarding my thoughts about these edits, I think we should distinguish between top pages and subpages. If an instructor is inviting students to submit work in subspace, the instructor should have considerable flexibility regarding those subpages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- While I'm not sure about what type of flexibility is being mentioned, I generally believe that teachers should have enough privileges to complete their projects. If our policies (and related proposals) restrict legitimate educational activities, then we are no longer a place for education. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the explanation and the summary, but I cannot guarantee that everyone will accept it. Removing contradictions sounds good. If the content was obvious nonsense or conflict with the entire Wikiversity, then your decision (blanking/removal) would be the most reasonable one. In this case, I think there were other options (such as rewriting to resolve contradictions), and that is why I'm calling for a review. For example, at special:diff/2602692, you said that "The obligation to use verifiable and reliable sources lies with the editors wishing to include information on Wikiversity page, not on those seeking to question it or remove it" contradicts the option of scholarly research at Wikiversity. I don't understand how this becomes a contradiction (have you already explained that?). Even if it was a contradiction, I think blanking was not the only one option. We could have restricted the obligation to non-research content (such as educational resources) or downgraded the obligation to a recommendation, and avoid potential conflict with Wikiversity research content. The summary of my question is, "Why have you decided to remove instead of suggesting a rewrite?". MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see an obvious contradiction, as mentioned in the edit summary: if original research and original user-written essays are allowed, there is no "obligation to use verifiable and reliable sources".
- As for dropping text vs. rewrite: a rewrite creates an opportunity to introduce new mistakes and non-consensualities, a bad thing. By contrast, removal of problematic sentences removes defects. After removal of problematic sentences, we may focus on whether the text that remained after removal is really accurate and fully fit for purpose, which I do not think to be the case either; more corrective work is required. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for additional explanations. If somebody is going to produce their own research where anything similar was never published elsewhere, there would be no other independent secondary sources, so the Wikipedia-like verifiability is no longer reasonable at here. On the other hand, I believe that authors should work hard to avoid errors (calculation errors, uploading wrong images etc., I was talking about this type of verifiablity for research content), if they want to pass Wikijournal peer reviews then they need to do so. In addition, I expect many type of research comes out from previous research history, and I think it is reasonable to expect the Wikipedia-like verifiablity when explaining research background and related history. What would you think about this? I'm not demanding the Wikipedia-like verifiability to research itself, I'm recommending this to things before entering research. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the original version (before recent efforts) can be found at Special:Permalink/1375824. Regarding my thoughts about these edits, I think we should distinguish between top pages and subpages. If an instructor is inviting students to submit work in subspace, the instructor should have considerable flexibility regarding those subpages.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Talk page destruction at Talk:Educational Media Awareness Campaign/History/POTD 3. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 06:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Can User:Ciphiorg/sandbox be an acceptable sandbox?
The sandbox was made by using talk page namespace so I moved it into userspace. After the page moved, I noticed that the sandbox was about physical geography but also aimed to promote a single website (physicalgeography.org) and its subpages. I checked the author's enwiki history, all edits were reverted and their enwiki sandbox was deleted per CSD U5. Could this be a xwiki spam case? MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 06:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Concern about an IP range starting from 165.199.181
IP editors from this range (Special:Contributions/165.199.181.3, Special:Contributions/165.199.181.9, Special:Contributions/165.199.181.15) have done a lot of unhelpful actions in our project for months. I think our custodians should consider a range block for a reasonable amount of time. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)