Wikiversity:Notices for custodians

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Favicon.gif Action required

Favicon.gif Templates

Favicon.gif Development

Favicon.gif Reference

Favicon.gif Events and news

This page is a central location for communication between custodians.

Improved search in deleted pages archive[edit]

During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.

Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete page, and add &fuzzy=1 to the URL, like this: Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).

We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0 in the URL, like this:

Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.

Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

WMF Global Ban[edit]

FYI - See [1]. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I need help reviewing a Global RFC[edit]

Dear admins, I am preparing a Global Request for Comments about financial support for admins that might be relevant for you .

Can you please review the draft and give me some feedback about how to improve it? Thank you.

MassMessage sent by Micru on 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Requesting block/lock[edit]

Could someone block and globally lock User:IanDBeacon 3 due to impersonation and sockpuppetry? BTW this guy I am reporting is the w:en:WP:LTA/DENVER perp. --IanDBeacon (discusscontribs) 20:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@IanDBeacon: All I can do locally is delete. I would recommend posting for a global lock from a steward at m:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: Already done. --IanDBeacon (discusscontribs) 20:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions for ethics policy violations[edit]

User:Marshallsumter has been notified that he is no longer permitted to create pages on Wikiversity that analyse the behaviour of other contributors. Please reference Wikiversity:Research_guidelines "A project that breaks or tests conventional ethical guidelines is not permitted." Any content that violates this sanction may be speedily deleted by any custodian. --mikeu talk 17:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually I'm not analyzing anyone's behavior! Four landing pages were created Astronomy, Cosmogony, Earth, and Minerals to which I have contributed. A landing page by definition is a "web page at which a user first arrives at a website".[1] The landing pages appear to be receiving trickle down hits from, e.g, Portal:Science among others. It's their effectiveness that's being examined. This has nothing to do with anyone's behavior. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I should have included links to the specific content that I was referring to. The pages that I just deleted are Dominant group/Wikiversity/Good faith edits and Dominant group/Wikiversity/Chronology of events. Both of these included detailed analysis of the contributions of participants. --mikeu talk 18:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Just FYI the Dominant group/Wikiversity project was not "A project that breaks or tests conventional ethical guidelines". No conventional ethical guidelines were broken or tested. The 14 or so high school students involved were conducting valid and verified volleyball history research approved by their advisor. Issues were examined not behavior. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to create pages that study the behaviour of participants on Wikiversity. Any pages that contain such analysis will be be removed. --mikeu talk 14:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I see you also deleted Dominant group/Duress which focused on United States case law. Why? US case law is US law and a legitimate area of study. And, is clearly by definition, not a violation of any WMF policy. Please restore. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 14:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. DCDuring (23 April 2010). "landing page". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2018-04-25.

sock puppet sleeper accounts[edit]

FYI, a steward has identified numerous sock puppet sleeper accounts cross wiki.

I have blocked Friend of Lomax which is related to some of the accounts below that have been blocked on other projects.

Please also note that it is inappropriate for a participant to notify a contributor of legal action. Proper notifications should be made through processes appropriate to the court system that has competence and jurisdiction over the matter. Notifications on wiki have the potential to harass and/or intimidate in a manner that is inconsistent with Wikiversity:Civility.

At this time the following accounts have no local edits and I don't see any need to take further action. But, please watch for activity from the following usernames:

List of accounts

--mikeu talk 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this user would use these accounts now that this has been made public, but I'll monitor these sleepers as much as I can (even with my hectic schedule, until June). I also believe that the username, "Friend of Lomax", and the comment made by this user itself indicates trolling and rather no real intention of notifying you about any legal action being taken against the WMF. A food for thought. A simple indefinite block on sight to these trolls if they persist —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping a lookout. No need to spend a lot of time on this. Many of those accounts have not yet made a first edit. Only a couple have been blocked on non english language wikis. But, yes, these were likely created for the sole purpose of disruptive editing and could become active in the future. Also note that these accounts may be related to a user that we blocked long ago; the checkuser wouldn't reveal any connection more than 90 days old. I already knew about the legal action from an anonymous email. The editor of that note on my talk page apparently doesn't realize that I am not easily intimidated. I'm going to leave that edit visible because it is important that the community know about the case. I'm not at liberty to say much more publicly due to legal and privacy concerns. --mikeu talk 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


Anyone know why we're seeing a very old notice at the top: "Discuss and vote on Ruy Pugliesi for full custodianship."? Mediawiki:Sitenotice hasn't been edited recently, so I'm not sure where the notice is coming from? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 03:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I checked the documentation and I can't find any explanation. I've created . We'll see what they say. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I posted the following on meta: "== Wikiversity Site Notice ==

Hi RadiX!

The following MediaWiki:Sitenotice "Discuss and vote on Ruy Pugliesi for full custodianship." has appeared on Wikiversity but not from our Wikiversity MediaWiki:Sitenotice! I checked its history on Wikiversity and no one has entered a message since June 2018. You are an active Custodian already! Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

{{ping|Marshallsumter}} The message is still in the system allmessages, so it is most likely a display artefact around the v:mediawiki:sitenotice id where the system thinks that it is new, for some reason. See mw:Manual:Interface/Sitenotice for more detail on how it works, or something gone askew with the cookies through a system level change.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)" I've looked through these with no obvious hints! It likely has to do with recent modifications so the phabricator task (T218970) should succeed. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 04:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was some sort of local issue in your sitenotice as it was showing in your allmessages via the api. I incremented the number and purge the notice and as I look it is gone. Exact cause is unknown to me.

    Is anyone still seeing the sitenotice? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a local issue, and local edits don't resolve the problem for long. It is a MediaWiki bug, being addressed by . -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice of resolution in Wikiversity:Newsletters/Tech_News#Tech_News:_2019-13. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Need a block[edit]

Hi, please block Special:Contributions/ for Vandalism. Thanks. Tomybrz Bip Bip 11:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

2 day-protection enforced on Enzyme structure and function. Seems to have stopped for now. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Atom Saleb MW[edit]

Atom Saleb MW seems to be playing with Wikiversity. --Martin Urbanec (discusscontribs) 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Review/Marshallsumter[edit]

Please see Wikiversity:Community Review/Marshallsumter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:User talk:DErnestWachter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to need some help going through Special:Contributions/DErnestWachter. It's difficult to tell what, if anything, is legitimate. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig: This is an enormous amount of recent edits. I've begun looking at A course on cabals/Sacrifice do you want comments summarized here for other custodians to review or on the talk pages? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
For example, Google Scholar has no resources that have Sattvic, Rajasic and Tamasic as adjectives to cabal, suggesting no authoritative support for doing so. But these are adjectives to foods including meats and psychological states. "One who is a true devotee however offers up or consecrates everything they have to their beloved deity with no thought obtaining anything whatsoever. A devotees only desires in offering their sacrifice are the wishes to grow deeper in love for their beloved and that their beloved will be able to make greater use of them." Reads like faith over all other concerns. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: I would recommend that we use the resource edit history and/or the resource talk page to address these edits. Managing them centrally may be more organizational effort than necessary. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: This is something of a policy question, but are non-custodians able to assist in sifting through the edits? --MoonyTheDwarf (discusscontribs) 20:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@MoonyTheDwarf: Your assistance would be most welcome. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 21:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: I pretty much share the same sentiments as Marshall on his edits, and suspect most if not all of his article-space edits can be safely rolled back without loss of quality in articles. Note that this is after only a skim over his more recent edits, will go through them individually later, when i'm not sitting on concrete outside :p --MoonyTheDwarf (discusscontribs) 21:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)