Wikiversity:Notices for custodians/Archive/5

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiversity:Privacy policy

Please review Wikiversity:Privacy policy#Personal information. While it is not common, we do on occasion see edits that include personal information (such as the suspected real name associated with an IP, phone numbers, etc.) These should be reverted and subject to Wikiversity:Revision deletion with a warning on the talk page to explain our local policy and the global privacy policy. --mikeu talk 16:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Terms of Use

I encourage everyone to review wmf:Terms of Use. I just discovered an entire series of contributions that were all from copyrighted resources. If a user seems incredibly productive (many characters per edit or many pages in a short period of time, we should follow up to verify the content is either original or open and properly referenced. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication

Custodians and bureaucrats can now enable two-factor authentication on Wikimedia accounts. Visit either Special:Preferences or go directly to Special:OATH. The authentication uses Google Authenticator or a similar app, and is only required when you actually log in. Saved cookies (devices you use regularly) also count, so this is minimally intrusive and ensures that your account isn't hacked by anyone who doesn't have your mobile device. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


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


User:abd is under sanctions as described at [5] Custodians, please review and let me know if anything needs to be clarified. --mikeu talk 18:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


User:Marshallsumter has been warned to refrain from disruptive editing.[6] Specifically he is prohibited from unilaterally removing templates from mainspace pages that are used to implement our processes without prior discussion and consensus to do so. This includes {{tl:Scope}}, {{tl:Deletion request}}. {{tl:Prod}}, etc. --mikeu talk 17:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a serious concern! Just FYI, but no Wikiversity policy or suggested policy links to the template {{Scope}}; therefore, anyone is free to remove or emplace that template, and without consensus approved policy linking to the template to verify the above claims this is beginning to appear more like a situation of duress which is a concern to custodians, bureaucrats, and stewards. Duress like liability for personal attacks is a USA federal district court matter. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
If you believe that there is an actionable liability in a court of competant jurisdiction then you should arrange for a lawyer to convey that to both me personally and Wikimedia:Legal. This forum is not the appropriate place to do that. --mikeu talk 19:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, what you suggest is incorrect. A USA district court judge would ask me if I've tried local process first, which is what I am doing. Second, you do not work for the WMF; therefore, WMF legal is not required or obliged to provide you with counsel. Third, the WMF provides a disclaimer that content is the sole responsibility of the volunteers not the WMF. Fourth, even if by some unexpected reason, WMF legal chooses to help you, your possible actions here regarding duress, which as you are higher than me in a volunteer constructed hierarchy, presumes guilt unless innocence is proved, not kidding, are limited. The personal attacks which you've engaged in before and now again can be lumped under duress. Please understand this is not "wikilawyering". I can take you personally to such a court, remove WMF from responsibility per their disclaimer, subject to court approval. These issues are serious! I have no desire to spend any more time prosecuting in court and plead with you to exercise better judgment. If the page title is causing your concern, either opt for a choice or ask me to choose another, then drop this matter. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 20:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, just FYI, there is no template {{tl:Pod}}. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo and any confusion that it may have caused. I've corrected it from "Pod" to "Prod". --mikeu talk 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "unilateral removal" of speedy deletion or similar templates has always been practice and the Scope template itself says: "If the deletion is contested, then please list the page at requests for deletion for discussion instead." That is, instead of replacing a removed template, use the Deletion request template and file the Request, or, per WV:Deletions, seek an alternative resolution. The removal is an efficient "contest." Discussion is not required. This has long been policy and practice. We have, here, a bureaucrat who has used the threat of a block to enforce his own idea, against a custodian who was acting as any ordinary user could act, and properly. Marshall is correct that there is a serious concern. Speedies and Prods may likewise be contested in the same way, by simple removal, but Prods have a longer automatic period for objection. The insistent use of Scope here was improper, based on entirely new ideas of scope. The resource involved is clearly in scope, unless project scope has drastically changed. Scope is being used, very recently only, to challenge resources, including one that has existed for more than ten years, that was not disruptive and was always considered as legitimate study, with many users working on it. --Abd (discusscontribs) 19:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


I found a discussion on {{Scope}}. It is here. It was agreed to by many, including this, "Removing the template yourself shouldn't cause a problem, but it's a good idea to link to the page from a topic or school (or two). I'd rather this template was only used on entirely non-controversial deletions of pages that really belong somewhere else (such as another wiki or the bitbucket), are not adding aything to Wikiversity, but were brobably good faith attempts at pages, and thus should not be speedy deleted. If there is anyone that still wants the page deleted, then point them at RfD. Michael Billington (talkcontribs) 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" This also confirms that the person requesting deletion be pointed to RfD. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Here's the quote from {{Prod}}: "You may remove {{proposed deletion}} from this resource's source text to contest this proposal, with or without discussion." Any removal of this template by anyone clearly does require consensus. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Deletion request

The only instance on record was settled by consensus, including the above bureaucrat. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)