Wikiversity:Request custodian action

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Request custodian action)
Jump to: navigation, search
Custodians' tool

New request
Please sign with -- ~~~~

Wikiversity Custodians are users who have access to technical features that help with maintenance of Wikiversity. Those features include protecting and deleting pages, blocking other editors, and undoing these actions as well. Custodians are both trusted members of the community and generally well known.

About this page
Favicon.gif Action required

Favicon.gif Templates

Favicon.gif Development

Favicon.gif Reference

Favicon.gif Events and news

Custodian requests Entries
Edit protected 1


Please install / activate the UploadWizard, or provide explicit instructions on what I need to do get it installed or activated. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


Alright, can someone please go through and clean out Category:Files needing copyright information? Per Licensing policy and Wikiversity fair use, these files need to be deleted by last year. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 13:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Resources with Files Pending Deletion, Wikiversity:User Pages with Files Pending Deletion, and Wikiversity:Unused Files Pending Deletion. More than 2,000 files have been either removed or tagged as Fair Use. The remaining files are part of student projects sponsored by User:Jtneill, and are awaiting his response as to how he wants them addressed. Yes, they could just be deleted. But because there were files outstanding for more than a year without license information, there's little urgency in addressing them at this point. We can wait for James to return from his break and provide a recommendation. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to the user's claim, there are files the Category that have only recently been uploaded. I have started a learning resource to handle this issue as learning-by-doing, it is at Licensing of Wikiversity media. The first file I looked at was not a Jtneill participant. We need a generic process that will efficiently handle the situation. Dave has done a yeoman job, already.
A brief summary of the learning project: this project will tag files involved in the educational process here as Fair Use, if any user so decides to tag them. These files, generically tagged, unilaterally, will then be listed, machine-readable, as Fair Use, being used on a specific page in mainspace (Licensing of Wikiversity media/Files), satisfying the purpose and letter of the policy. They will also be prodded for slow deletion. If the Prod is removed, then normal process will be followed. As part of this process, any user may delist the file from the licensing learning resource, as not having educational use, or perhaps being blatant copyright violation, speedy deletion tagging the file, which then enters the normal deletion process, i.e., it will be deleted, or the tag will be removed and WV:RFD may be used. Very ample notice will be provided to users whose files may face deletion, and not only mere notice, but a specific offer of support. It is about time we settle this issue. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What is most important, in terms of urgency, is that files being kept because they are possibly either uploaded by the owner, are free content from elsewhere, or are possibly eligible for a fair use claim, be tagged as fair use, so that any re-users of content may rapidly, by machine, identify and handle these files distinctly from free content. What is eligible for Fair Use permanently is more stringent than a temporary claim. Hence the project creates a temporary claim, at most. If a permanent claim of fair use is made, or licensing information is supply, the page is removed from the licensing project listing; likewise, if the file is tagged for speedy deletion, the file is removed. Speedy deletion will put the file into the normal deletion queue, with dispute procedure well established.
This procedure will handle, within a few days, Category:Files needing copyright information, because it will supply fair use information and/or we will toss the files in the deletion queue. There may be other files, categorized differently, I have not investigated that.
There is work needed on Licensing of Wikiversity media. Perhaps those who are eager to clean up the situation will help. I agree that it is long overdue. So let's do it! What has been missing in the past is a coherent community process to satisfy WMF policy while at the same time pursuing Wikiveristy's unique educational process goals.
We should not toss a mess into the hands of custodians. Custodians should not have to make complex decisions, where it can be avoided, except as advised by the community. This process will create some safeguards, avoiding the extremes. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of an improperly licensed image with no appropriate fair use rationale, though it is in use on the Motivation and Emotion project. Source points to Australia domain and permission is claimed to be 'open content' - not exactly true, because's Terms of Use linked to at the bottom of that page expressly states "In particular, you may not use any Material on the Fairfax Network to establish, maintain or provide, or assist in establishing, maintaining or providing your own publications, Internet site or other means of distribution." If there are other images tagged inappropriately as being 'free' contrary to their purported sources, then the amount of unfree material in circulation may be bigger than just the amount tagged, which means a deeper review of these files is needed. I note that most of these images are part of Motivation and Emotion, James's project, as you have said; however, we can still do an impromptu early review of any such images while we wait for his response. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 08:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to go through every image and verify the licensing information if you wish. If there's something I can do with a simple bot that would help you build a list of images to investigate, please request it at Wikiversity:Bots/Requests. Separately, I would be happy to delete any files that are appropriately tagged for deletion as a violation of copyright. But if you discover that the information on a file is incorrect, I believe you have an obligation to correct that information, since you were bold enough to investigate it to begin with. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Some cleanup needed.[edit]

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

IP Block exempt[edit]

Please give me this right so I cannot be effected by IP blocks. It has happened to me at wikipedia before, and I would like this right so I won't be effected by IP blocks. My brother, or my class, will start editing Wikiversity. --~~Goldenburg111 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

N Not done - The best way for you to not be affected by IP blocks would be for you to encourage your brother and your classmates to not violate Wikiversity policy. If they aren't mature enough to edit here, don't encourage them to start. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
ok then. --~~Goldenburg111 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Shared internet access is a common problem, but it's much worse on Wikipedia than here. (Because some kid playing around is much more likely to do so on Wikipedia!
Goldenburg, back then, there was some vandalism of your pages, that may have come from other students at your school. Did that happen? If so, there may be no way to prevent a problem. If you find yourself IP blocked, you can still use email, if I'm correct, through the WV interface, and you can email a custodian that way. You may email me, you have my email address, and I'll forward it appropriately. Be sure to write down the IP address, the block message will tell you. If they are disruptive, you might get blamed for it, but only if checkuser is run. We can support you here on Wikiversity, I assume. IP block exemption is not granted, usually, unless there is a reason. The usual reason is *not* disruptive editing, but the use of open proxies. I doubt your brother or schoolmates will be doing that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks Abd. --~~Goldenburg111 23:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of GLAM newspapers without consensus[edit]

Special:Diff/1165966. As I was told before, if I had any beef with some of Abd's actions, I am to bring it to the attention of administrators rather than carrying the dispute myself. I dispute the changes Abd made in that diff, which were without consensus; the GLAM newspapers should be archived normally from the Colloquium, that is by the archive bot, and leaving them on the Colloquium at present did not do any harm. At the very least, they were a good read and it was convenient to access them from Wikiversity's main discussion page. That Abd sought to inconvenience me by this action, removing the GLAM newspapers before even attaining consensus to do so, leads me to post this notice here. I request administrative re-review of this unilateral action and if possible overturn of the removal of the GLAM newspapers. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 15:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been better to seek consensus before removing the Colloquium subscription for these articles. However, it also would have been better for consensus to have been requested before they were added. It wasn't. Taking personal offense in Abd's actions is inappropriate. This also doesn't require custodian action. There is a discussion at Wikiversity talk:Colloquium#Do we want the GLAM newsletter here?. You are free to join that conversation without edit warring with Abd. Make your case for why the articles should be returned and the subscription added or renewed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please update the license title to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. It is currently like this: "Attribution/Share-Alike". See the official website here: . Also see m:MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright. Thanks, --Glaisher (discusscontribs) 08:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)