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 2

Request for alternate account[edit]

Today I set up an alternate account that I plan to use on Wikiversity, Wikipedia and commons. If you go to w:user:Guy vandegrift's student you will see why I wish to have this account.

Also, you should probably know I have a third alternate account that I have maintained for about a year. It must be kept as confidential as possible, and nothing in mainspace is ever edited from it. User:Abd knows why I need it.

Yours truly, --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, as to the non-disclosed account, I do not recall, you have probably told me. For full security, a 'crat should know, or at least an administrator, but, Guy, if you want my backup on this, you should email me again. That might be good enough. If there is no disruption from them, undisclosed accounts are not a violation of policy. However, accidents happen. People forget what account they are logged into and do something that causes someone else to be upset. That's why disclosure, so that the fact of the account existing does not itself become a cause of disruption. But it's not required, merely advisable.
Now, as to the Wikipedia account you disclosed, that may be blocked if noticed. (Don't worry, it is very unlikely that your main account would be blocked because of this.) Role accounts are not allowed. That looks like a role account. In fact, as you describe it, it's not, it is misnamed, it is an account you use to take certain actions, on behalf of your students, for which you are responsible. I don't see the value, frankly. Anything you would do with that account you could do as w:User:Guy vandegrift, and it would be cleaner and clearer. Further, as to what you describe as a purpose, uploading Commons images, if they are noticed, the images will be deleted. The problem is permissions. Who is the author? "Own work" can suffice, if the Commons community believes it; if doubt is raised, the matter will have to go through OTRS, but, if the uploader (you) is not the author (your student is), it won't fly.
I recommend that you blank that Wikipedia user page and put a speedy deletion tag on it, saying, in the deletion reason, that you do not intend to use the account, and then don't use it, period, anywhere. Autologin can screw you up. I've seen it happen, with an admin with alternate accounts, he was blocked and very nearly lost his adminship, there was huge disruption. (Local accounts are now a thing of the past, all WMF accounts are now global, except where there are existing accounts that have not been merged. Gradually, those are being cleaned up.) So if you have a sock *anywhere*, you have one *everywhere.* I pointed out the problems involved, at meta. Nobody cared. Local wikis have, more and more, lost autonomy. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of the third alternate account and reason. No need for additional disclosure on that one. Regarding the student account, I don't see any advantage of using that account vs. just anonymous IP edits from the school's IP address. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I will delete all three alternate accounts right now. After thinking about it, I began to concoct all sorts ow ways to abuse such an account. I could, for example pretend to be the student and do sock puppetry (something I accidentally did on EVERY edit to the user pages!) , or I could allow a student to do questionable copyvios that I wouldn't do so as to preserve my reputation. It occurred to me that if a student doesn't want to register, he/she could do what all other unregistered editors do. And that is to edit from the IP address. That would be easy to from a computer lab. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 22:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
YesY Done: deletion requests pending on all three: Wikipedia, commons, Wikiversity--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 23:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul to Mediawiki:Blockedtext by March 14 2015 14 March 2015[edit]

Please change the text here to a new one __

Your account has been blocked

Reason— $2

You can continue to look at information on wikiversity, but you cannot edit pages right now.

Blocked account or range: $7
Your IP address is: $3
Blocking Custodian: $1
Start of this block: $8 (UTC)
Block will expire on: $6 (UTC)

Information for the blocked user(s)

You can contact $1 or another custodian to discuss the block. You can use the 'email this user' feature (in the left-hand sidebar of a custodian's user page) provided a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Please include this in any queries. Blocked users can usually edit their own user discussion page. If you are not logged in as a registered user, use the user discussion page for your IP address: here. You can add the Template ({Unblock}) to your user discussion page in order to request unblocking. (discuss) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Originally left at User talk:Dave Braunschweig. Moved here for record of request and any appropriate discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The notice contained key words NOEDITSECTION and NOTOC which damaged display of this page and could do so on the talk page where placed. I removed them.
The word "can" should be replaced with the better English "may."
The IP is school-blocked on
This should be very carefully considered. "Account preferences" is irrelevant for IPs. This is not the message we should use. We should review the current message.
See the discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext. Discussion should continue there. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete this account as it is redundant[edit]

Would you please delete my account because it is redundant. I have not used it for a long time and I had even forgotten I had created it! The account I use routinely is Droflet. --Sigman (discusscontribs) 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not possible to delete or merge accounts, but I've added a redirect from User:Signman to User:Droflet so that anyone looking for you under the old user account will be able to find you. This should continue to work after the account is renamed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Noted.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 15:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • mmm.... The page that is now User:Sigman will become User:Sigman-enwikiversity as part of the rename process. What happens if the new Sigman creates a universal user page? That is coming, too, I think. I think a soft redirect with an explanation might serve as long as the new Sigman consents. We need to be able to merge accounts. [1] I'd say this really should have been done first, it's been needed for a long time, and would have made the SUL universalization a bit easier. However, whatever they did would have problems. When accounts are renamed, there are still all the signatures sitting out there. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I may have complicated the picture unintentionally. I put a speedy delete tag on Sigman per author request. If this is just going to add to the mess, I'll remove it. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the speedy deletion tag. The redirect will correctly lead anyone looking for the old Sigman to User:Droflet, the page will simply become the renamed page. Contributions will all show for the new "-enwikiversity" name. I also placed a redirect from User talk:Sigman to User talk:Droflet. To complete this, I notified Droflet. Thanks, all. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please edit site notice for Ruy Pugliesi for full custodianship[edit]

Only administrators may edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice. It should now have this wikitext:

Discuss and vote on [[Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Ruy Pugliesi|Ruy Pugliesi for full custodianship]].

Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The opportunity to edit MediaWiki pages doesn't come up often. Does @Guy vandegrift: want to give this one a try? It's a two step process. Edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice and then bump the count in MediaWiki:Sitenotice id. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I'll give it at try if you haven't already done it. First I will try to figure out what is going on by going to the Sitenotice.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I went to MediaWiki:Sitenotice and found a blank page. How am I supposed to edit it? Then I went to MediaWiki:Sitenotice id and found a number. I have no idea what that numbers signifies, although it is obvious from its history page that "bumping" it means to add one. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
See mw:Manual:Interface/Sitenotice. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, noted.

YesY Done by Guy vandegrift. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I did not know about Sitenotice id. Makes sense. I will edit MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice id, there is an unanswered question there. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What about MediaWiki:Anonnotice. Do we want to notify non-logged-in users of the vote? They might be registered users. That's a question, not a request. There is no id for that notice, because -- I think -- anons cannot dismiss a site notice. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cultus page[edit]


May I ask you to explain why is Cultus page nor showing on search engines? Here is the correspondence I have received.

Looking forward to your reply. Aleksandra

There is no Cultus page on this wiki that could be indexed or searched. Based on the content on your user page and talk page, I also recommend not creating a Cultus page. You are welcome to contribute educational content here at Wikiversity. Solicitation for external organizations and websites is not accepted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, Dave. Aleksandra, I allowed your link on your user page because it is possible that there could be some collaboration with Wikiversity. Dave is taking a somewhat stronger position, but he has not removed the link on your user page. It was recommended that you contact me. You haven't. I will assist you if you have questions, please ask on User talk:Abd, as was suggested to you. This was not a matter for administrative attention. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)