# Wikiversity:Request custodian action

 New request Please sign with -- ~~~~ Welcome 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 To request deletion of a page, please see Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion To request import of a page from Meta or Wikibooks, please see Wikiversity:Import To request a CheckUser action, see Wikiversity:Requests for CheckUser To comment on custodian actions, please see Wikiversity:Custodian feedback For all other types of custodian requests, click here and edit this page. To see old requests, see the Archive See also: Wikiversity:Notices for custodians
Custodian requests Entries
Purge cache
Edit protected page 0
Speedy deletion 0
Expired prods 0
Unblock requests 0
Possible copyvio 0
History merge 0

## Reviews for Inactivity

Hi everyone,

An option for dealing with inactivity apart from the way your currently doing it is to have a set policy on inactivity. With a local policy sysops can be assessed for inactivity, given an appropriate warning of potential desysop, and then if not responded to you can then go to the stewards for the removal of rights. I developed this policy on Wikispecies here which permits a simple and easy way to do this. After voting on the one today I thought you may be interested in this option. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

To see it in action this was my most recent case now archived at Meta it includes all the diffs and links appropriate so you can see all of it from here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 16:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: the current policy states that "The maximum time period of inactivity without community review for holders of advanced administrative rights is two years per the MediaWiki Global policy described at Admin activity review. After that time a Steward will remove the rights." --mikeu talk 17:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

### Survey

• Support 5 edits and 5 actions within 12 months makes sense to me. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support -yes, the above sounds reasonable to me. --mikeu talk 03:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I have written up a policy that can do this and put it in draft form here, please note the bottom part will be a separate template and is de-wikified for draft purposes. Let me know what you think, Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support 5 edits and 5 actions within 12 months makes also sense to me. I am not a custodian in the german Wikiversity but I contribute to that language due to my work at a german university. Is this decision making about inactive curators performed simultaneously in other languages? Differences in decision making between language could cause problems for multiple languages editing. In my authoring activities I used icons in Sustainable Developement Goals in the english Wikiversity. In translation efforts into the german language I caused additional Wiki Commons administrator activities due to fact that german administration decisions had different licencing constraints for images. So it was to make icons visible in German wikiversity. Inconsistency in curator decision making, might have an impact on multilanguage authoring. Activities spending efforts in use-cases and applications of Wikiversity learning resources like Wiki2Reveal might also be regarded as a relevant curator activities for the community even if it is not an measuable as countable administrative action or activity. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 21:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I recently in my role at Wikispecies performed our inactivity assessments of admins, one eventually lost his rights over this. However an important point. I felt that our particular local policy on this was too harsh on translation admins. Hence I made a request via RfC to exempt translation admins from normal admin inactivity review. Reasons were several fold but included the reality that many of those translating pages, a valuable service, who have admin privelages for this function are only on any given wiki for short periods of time, then they move on to another wiki. Hence there are often, understandable, reasons for significant periods of apparent inactivity on one wiki. Hence my own view is in the end to deal with our own site based sysops in regards to inactivity and leave the translation admins to a more case by case assessment as needed. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
So let me summarize a few things:
• (Vulnerability) Inactive admin accounts might create a security risk and highjacking those account (as Dave Braunschweig already mentioned) could create a hugh workload on admins to fix that especially when these accounts are used in conjunction with bots. That abuse will increase the workload for the active admins even more. That risk should be mitigated/reduced.
• (Undesired Side Effects of Counts) If we assess the 5 activity policy for admins that want to keep their administration rights, it could lead to undesired admin activities that are performed just for the sake of getting the 5 admin activities performed. Especially deleting pages, blocking users, ... do require careful and sound handling of cases and should not be driven by admin activity counts - feels a bit strange to argue against "counts" as a mathematician and computer scientist ;-) .
• (Admin Activity Counts) We all might appreciate the value of Wikiversity admins that support the community in educational settings at university and schools and use their admin rights with care and responsibility even if they do not reach the 5 admin action threshold. I think these counts are helpful to identify cause of inactivity and it might be the case that they were not needed anymore as Mikael mentioned for WikiJournal. I think we all would grant Mikael Häggström again the rights if constraints come up that he requires those rights for maintaining WikiJournal pages.
• (Rights and Responsibility) Nevertheless this discussion here triggered awareness about the fact, that additional rights are provided with a responsibility to support the Wikiversity community with those access to the additional adminitrative tools.
• (Inactive and no Response) As you see below there are some Curators and Custodians that responded to the inactive account discussion some did not. For those who did not respond to this or did not take part in a discussion they might be no longer interested in the admin rights. Of course it is better to state that additional rights are no longer required. Anyway this discussion created awareness of the fact that priviliges should be granted if needed and disabled if possible. That should not have an impact on the possibility to join the team of curator and custodians later on the we should be open them. If curators want to disable their additional rights, then I guess we all would appreciate their security and vulnerability awareness.
Personal Conclusion: This discussion here was valuable for community health and community vulnerability. I personally would like to keep my additional rights, if possible. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 08:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support 5 edits and 5 actions within 12 months but equally I would support a higher requirement of 10 edits and 10 actions over 12 months. Re-applying for lost permissions should not be an onerous task. --Green Giant (discusscontribs) 01:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Making note of curators and custodians who have fewer than five edits and/or fewer than five administrative actions in the last 12 months, giving them an opportunity to comment.

• Bert Niehaus (Talk) – I personally came into the curator role due to access to import features that are not publicly available for all Wikiversity authors. This step to see the administrative perspective allowed me insights in custodian actions. For me personally it was very helpful. Created test cases for import mechanism like from Wikipedia to Wikiversity (see Wikipedia2Wikiversity) to convert wikipedia article into learning resources or to convert wikiversity articles into slides for lecture to allow individual annotation to Wikiversity contents on slides e.g. in lectures without modification of the sources in Wikiversity (see Wiki2Reveal. In general the workflow from testing use cases, analysis of custodian actions, inter wiki operation, vulnerability assessment of custodian and curator features and its requirements and constraints cannot be performed with a quick shot, because tools must have a good usablility and must be of benefit for authors in wikiversity and on the other hand it is relevant that these tools do not create a vulnerability of the core principles of openess, higher maintenance efforts for custodians and administrators or other technically facilitated options that could violate the neutral point of view of a huge amount of articles and learning resources in Wikiversity and could endanger a community driven, participatory approaches of development of learning resources and have them available as a common good. Furthermore I try to derive mechanisms at the interface to international agencies that have on the one hand a respect for regulations and the mandate of these organisation and on the other hand allow also to have participatory elements of capacity building and user-driven innovation outside the organisations that require the openness and NPOV in the Wiki to evolve in a community based way. As an example I worked on Sustainable Development Goals and on Capacity Building within Wikiversity. I understand that inactivity of Curators and Custodians require a kind of measurement to trigger actions so I supported the approach above. The consideration from a different angle might also lead to the conclusion, that custodian actions and activities do not lead to a measurable digital footprint of these activity. Anyway if we decide to remove my curator status due to the missing activity, then it is ok for me. You can be sure that I support the way forward independent of my curator status. To create a test environment like Wikipedia2Wikiversity create measurable import actions for me as a curator does not make sense to me. I appreciate the decision making process you all perform here and the option to explain activities. Thank you all for supporting the Wikiversity concept as Open Educational Resources. --Bert Niehaus (discusscontribs) 09:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• CQ (Talk) –
Hi folks. UPDATE 02:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC) - I'm still alive and breathing in the human sense, but I'm very precariously perched on a tiny twig in Internet terms. I enthusiastically support the Wikiverse and grass-roots digital democracy but realize that our ideals and values matter less each passing year. Love is still the answer, though. Feel free to edit, delete, revert any of my stuff. I'll be watching from afar and may emerge again when conditions favor my online presence. CQ (discusscontribs)
• HappyCamper (Talk) – Hi, I am checking in to say hello. This risk of inactive custodians suddenly being hacked and doing damage to Wikiversity is not zero unfortunately, but it is minimal. --HappyCamper (discusscontribs) 11:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Juandev (Talk) –
• Lbeaumont (Talk) – What problem is being solved here? I continue to do my best to make constructive contributions to Wikiversity, including creating these learning resources. Cardiac surgery slowed me down earlier this year, yet I persist! I appreciate having curator privileges and they can be useful. What would be gained by taking action to remove privileges that I have never abused?
• the major issue in regards to inactivity is a safety issue. The tools are capable of doing things that would be undesirable in hacked account, and inactive accounts are an easier target for this. Hence determining if accounts are at risk of this is important. Also Global Sysops have rules/ policies on their interventions and the number of local sysops available is a part of this. It is therefore important to know how many sysops are actually active. It is a part of receiving these rights that they will be monitored. I am just responding to your what is being solved here question. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• If the goal is to identify inactive accounts then the suggested filter has poor specificity, as evidenced by the number of contributions I have made over the past weeks, months, and years. If the goal is account security, then I suggest adopting security procedures, such as multi-factor authentication.
• Just answering your questions here, I am not making a call on this, part of it is admin actions, ie does a user need the tools. This is determined by the logs of admin actions, such as blocks, merges, deletions, patrolling etc. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
• Leighblackall (Talk) – - I'm still here, about to work more in submitting articles in WikiJournalHumanities, as well as in Wikidata. I mainly ever used the Move feature anyway, or deleting pages of my own once moved. I would appreciate retaining the privileges also. Leighblackall (discusscontribs) 00:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Mikael Häggström (Talk) – - Although I occasionally use the move or delete page feature for maintenance of WikiJournal, the structure of its pages are now relatively established, so I don't think curatorship is essential for me, since I think I will only use those features perhaps 2 to 5 times per year. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 19:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• SB Johnny (Talk) – - Hi All. I've mostly been spending my online time involved in US politics the last couple years. Hoping to play around a bit with the bloom clock this year and it's nice to be able to see deleted pages (someone nuked a bunch of the worksheet type pages a while back). --SB_Johnny talk 10:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

### Result

This thread has been sitting here unclosed for a while. While there wasn't much participation, there also wasn't any clear opposition to the proposal of requiring 5 edits and 5 actions within the last 12 months. I suggest it be closed with that result, and the policy updated accordingly (c.f. User:Faendalimas/Wikiversity Advanced Rights Review). --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 23:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

## Request for page protection

Requesting to protect HGAPS Banner page due to highly visible template, want to minimize risk of vandalism. Requesting full page protection, please! Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 23:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eyoungstrom the template has 8 transclusions if you don't count userspace (9 if you do), so does not appear to be "highly visible". It has history of vandalism. Full protection would be inappropriate here. At the moment, I don't think semiprotection is needed either, but if you have reason to believe it will become *more* visible and will be vandalized in the short-term future it might be warranted. --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 23:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Of note, Curator Cody Naccarato is an HGAPS member and also an alumnus of one of the affected classes, which I am continuing to teach. What we are striving to balance is transparency with familiarity (with the course content, goals, and plans) while being clear that Cody is not going rogue with any curator-related actions on HGAPS pages. We will then roll the banner page out to the hundreds of our HGAPS pages once it is protected.Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 00:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added the page to my watchlist, but until/unless there is any vandalism I don't think it needs to be protected - I won't revert another custodian if they disagree, but generally I think its better to allow edits and respond accordingly rather than assume that future edits will be vandalism. I trust that university students are old enough not to vandalize the template - Wikiversity:Assume Good Faith. DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree! I am not worried about vandalism from the inside; coping with shootings got really political really fast; I am trying to get some degree of protection in place before going big with something that could get hacked by ill intent from the outside. Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 00:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
That makes more sense, but still, I don't think it needs to be protected proactively like this, sorry DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
<<Sorry -- you are typing faster than me>>
Agree! I am not worried about vandalism from the inside; coping with shootings got really political really fast. This was especially true when we attempted to link to Wikipedia pages such as Columbine shooting and Parkland shooting. We learned quickly to concentrate our efforts on Wikiversity and not over-reach with good intentions Wikiversity:Assume Good Faith, but we spent a while in fear of people following the links back and hacking our Wikiversity pages. We also are working with topics that sometimes involve vulnerable populations (e.g., people who have been exposed to trauma, people in potential distress or dealing with mental health issues), all of which make me want to be proactive about protecting those readers from potentially offensive or harmful hacks. I am trying to get some degree of protection in place before going big with something that could get hacked by ill intent from the outside. Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 00:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Eyoungstrom (discusscontribs) 00:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In general, Wikiversity doesn't preemptively protect pages. Across our more than 200,000 pages, fewer than 500 are protected. Vandalism is also much less frequent than might be expected. There are typically fewer than 10 vandalism edits reverted on a daily basis, and most of those are addressed within minutes by someone on the Small Wiki Monitoring Team. Vandalism is also typically random rather than targeted.

On the other hand, we don't hesitate to protect resources that are vandalism targets when it is demonstrated that they are. You or Cody should add all of the pages of interest to your watchlist. If there is any vandalism, those pages can quickly be escalated to semi-protected status. If the vandalism is caused by a known user, let us know here so we can block their account(s).

I also encourage you to consider applying for Curator status so that you, too, would be able to protect pages if and when a demonstrated need arises. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

## CC BY-ND-4.0 backwards compatible with CC BY-ND-3.0?

My understanding is that backward compatibility is a problem. Wikiversity has Template:Cc-by-nd-3.0 but not Template:Cc-by-nd-4.0, which I would like for w:File:SI Illustration Base Units and Constants Colour Full.svg. See also https://www.bipm.org/en/about-us/disclaimer.html

I don't really need the image, because a link to the Wikipedia file is more than sufficient. But out of curiosity, can I import this image WP to WV? --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Have you seen File:International System of Units Logo.png? Would this work instead? While we do have the ND template, nothing links to it. Mixing ND and non-ND content is problematic. See Creative Commons: Compatibility Chart. I think we could technically host an ND file, but my understanding is that we couldn't put ND content on a standard non-ND text page. I'm not sure how Wikipedia does it, but it's important to note that Commons doesn't have the ND image, only a free alternative. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 05:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that is perfect. I will put it in my collection of physics images. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 05:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

## Speedy delete of page with sub-pages

I went to do the speedy delete of Portal:Astronomy and discovered it has lots of subpages. Do I delete just the top page, and include all subpages in that deletion by clicking the appropriate box? --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 16:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, you have to delete each subpage separately. We can move subpages with the parent page, but not delete them. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
So I will delete all of them.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

## Reformatting equations that don't fit on the page.

Which is better? This equation doesn't fit on the page for my browser:

Repeating ... we get

${\displaystyle \int _{V}\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} \,\,dV=\sum _{j,k}[E_{x}(x_{n_{j,k}},y_{j},z_{k})-E_{x}(x_{1_{j,k}},y_{j},z_{k})]dydz+\sum _{i,k}[E_{y}(x_{i},y_{n_{i,k}},z_{k})-E_{y}(x_{i},y_{1_{i,k}},z_{k})]dxdz+\sum _{i,j}[E_{z}(x_{i},y_{j},z_{n_{i,j}})-E_{z}(x_{i},y_{j},z_{1_{i,j}})]dxdy+\Theta (dxdydz)}$

so the right side is ...

Here I broke it into two equations:

Repeating ... we get

${\displaystyle \int _{V}\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} \,\,dV=\sum _{j,k}[E_{x}(x_{n_{j,k}},y_{j},z_{k})-E_{x}(x_{1_{j,k}},y_{j},z_{k})]dydz+\sum _{i,k}[E_{y}(x_{i},y_{n_{i,k}},z_{k})-E_{y}(x_{i},y_{1_{i,k}},z_{k})]dxdz...}$

${\displaystyle +\sum _{i,j}[E_{z}(x_{i},y_{j},z_{n_{i,j}})-E_{z}(x_{i},y_{j},z_{1_{i,j}})]dxdy+\Theta (dxdydz)}$

so the right side is ...

Better yet, use align:

{\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\int _{V}\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} \,\,dV=&\sum _{j,k}[E_{x}(x_{n_{j,k}},y_{j},z_{k})-E_{x}(x_{1_{j,k}},y_{j},z_{k})]dydz\quad ...\\&\quad +\quad \sum _{i,j}[E_{z}(x_{i},y_{j},z_{n_{i,j}})-E_{z}(x_{i},y_{j},z_{1_{i,j}})]dxdy+\Theta (dxdydz)\end{aligned}}}

(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guy vandegrift (talkcontribs) 17 March 2021)

I'll leave the expression itself up to you, but when we format program code on multiple lines, we leave an operator at the end of the line, making it obvious to the reader that something else follows. For example:
x = 1 +    2 * 3
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
That's interesting. Physics calculations largely preceded the computer age, so I think I will follow that paradigm. I have decided to go with the aligned equations. That's how the journals would probably do it. --Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 20:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

## Received error "New User Created Page with External Link" while trying to publish my page.

I'm working on a project for college, and I received the error "New User Created Page with External Link" while trying to publish the page for said project. The links I used on the page were citations to journal articles I used for evidence. I was trying to publish the page to "Creating Federal Writers' Project – Life Histories/2021/Spring/105/Section 60/Frank Freeman".

Update: was able to fix the issue b publishing the page once without the links, then republishing with the links

(The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniellesho (talkcontribs) 2 April 2021‎)

## New User Exceeded New Page Limit - help requested

Hi there, my name's Chris. I'm new (as of April 2021) to WikiVersity, but not new to WikiMedia; I was involved in WikiVet for many years. You can see me in action talking about WikiVet at EduWiki 2012 on YouTube; perhaps google it as I'm worried if I try to put a link in to an edit as a 'new user' my edit will be blocked.

WikiMedia seems to have changed a fair bit since I last dabbled; I've hit barriers trying to create my user page as a 'new user' - blocked first as a 'New User creating page with external links', and then once I'd taken those out and tried to republish hit a new buffer of 'New User Exceeded New Page Limit'. Not the most friendly of introductions.... :( can anyone enable my UserPage creation please? ChrisTrace (discusscontribs) 14:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity! Wikiversity is a very small wiki in terms of volunteer support. We've had to resort to technical limits to keep down the spam and vandalism. We're happy to support legitimate users. Please try again. Within a few days and a few edits, you should be up to full strength. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

## Good New User Blocked

Hi friends, I was trying to share a message about the upcoming Board of Trustees elections and was blocked. I am a Board Election facilitator for the Wikimedia Foundation. I also have been a volunteer for about five years across WikiJournals and other projects. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (discusscontribs) 20:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikiversity! Sorry about the editing challenges. We've been under attack lately and our abuse filters are tighter than we'd normally like. Please try again. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

## Lua Error in displaying the documenation pages within templates

Hello all,

I encountered an error and I am not sure the proper method of reporting this, so I am posting it here. Upon editing some templates, I found this error message: "Lua error in Module:Documentation at line 140: message: type error in message cfg.container (string expected, got nil)." I just wanted to double check that people who can code Lua are aware of this problem and that we can get a fix ASAP. It seems to impact every template page I visit on Wikiversity. I am not sure if other users are having this problem, but it makes it difficult for me to view template pages and edit documentation. Thanks all. Cody naccarato (discusscontribs) 13:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cody naccarato: Fixed. Looks like it stemmed from Module:Documentation. Looks like I caused it when I imported a more recent version of Module:Documentation from wp as part of the import of a separate page. Thanks for spotting it! Here was a very logical place to raise it. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 01:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)