Wikiversity:Request custodian action

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to 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
Purge cache
Edit protected page 0
Speedy deletion 0
Expired prods 0
Own page deletion 0
Unblock requests 0
Possible copyvio 0
History merge 0

Unable to publish content[edit]

I see the post is not accepted on wikiversity as it shows an error message that the new user exceeds new page limit. Kindly let me know how I can proceed with this. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaince (talkcontribs) 29 October 2019‎)

@Jaince: Welcome! There are restrictions on new users to give them time to learn what content is appropriate for Wikiersity. The content you have added to your sandbox and the Wikiversity sandbox appears to be copyrighted content. Unless you own the copyright, it can't be hosted here. Wikiversity welcomes most types of learning materials that are not encyclopedia articles, textbooks, or source texts. Please note that Wikiversity is not a place for duplication of other Wikimedia projects. The content you are seeking to add would be part of an encyclopedia article, and therefore belongs at Wikipedia. Wikiversity would be used to host learning resources used to prepare for the NTSE. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Protect What is "programming"[edit]

Please protect What is "programming" page, that IP is obsessed with vandalising the page. Masumrezarock100 (discusscontribs) 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masumrezarock100: YesY Done IP also blocked. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikijournal of Medicine Board member Dr. Jason Dixon can't submit due to "new user block"[edit]

Hi I'm trying to submit my delegate availability to our call for delegates =Wikimedia Summit Berlin 2020=

Here is the text at my wikipedia sandbox:

the text I wish to submit as a response at my wikipedia sandbox

to submit to the following discussion:

Wikimedia Summit Berlin 2020 call for medical delegates

Please assist

Dr. Jason Dixon (discusscontribs) 16:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

and preferably let me know the outcome or advice by contacting me on as there are too many pages and and messages to keep track of an important topic such as the one above:

Clinical work email

Apologies if this message isn't clear it's 2am and on-call for certain patients...

@Dr. Jason Dixon: I'll email you as well but the solution is almost certainly to just make a few more edits and then you'll be fine. You could even just edit your sandbox more. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Justin (koavf)TCM thanks so much for your help Dr.khatmando (discusscontribs) 07:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dr.khatmando: Happy to help: I know that things can be confusing here sometimes. —Justin (koavf)TCM 07:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Block needed[edit]

Please block Special:Contributions/ - persistent vandalism after warning. Thanks, --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done --mikeu talk 01:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And another - Special:Contributions/ - content removal after warning. Thanks, --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 07:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done --mikeu talk 12:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


I'm not sure if this is spam or not, Please check. -- CptViraj (📧) 13:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done I blanked the page and left instructions on the userpage and their talk page--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 17:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou. -- CptViraj (📧) 00:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


Spam? -- CptViraj (📧) 12:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done deleted page in wrong namespace. cf Hartvisarts (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) --mikeu talk 12:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Please block this IP. Thanks! —Hasley 21:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done per request and clear vandalism. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: Thanks for following up so quickly. We typically don't block IPs indefinitely. I've backed this block off to one month for now. We can increase the duration later if they repeat. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Dave Braunschweig: sorry about that was in a rush when I saw it, I normally would not block ip's indef either its a bit pointless. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

New User Blocked Edit[edit]

I cannot publish changes to a page I made. I need to do so for school, please help! --Nova Cruz (discusscontribs) 00:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that this appears to be the abuse filter again --DannyS712 (discusscontribs) 00:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
YesY Done: User account set to "confirmed" for 24 hours.[1] Please extend if students in this class have difficulty or revoke (without notifying me) if inappropriate edits are made. --mikeu talk 01:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviews for Inactivity[edit]

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)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 5 edits and 5 actions within 12 months makes sense to me. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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.
  • (IT perspective) From an IT perspective I would suggest to allow people to disable some or all their own rights as curators/custodians for a period of time for private reasons and during that defined time span they cannot enable the custodian/curator rights anymore themselves. If the need to they must contact the admins again and ask for it. This approach has many advantages. Admins that are aware of the security risks and they know that they will not require the custodian rights for specific time (e.g. for 9 month due to a medical treatment) they can disable that for that time span and they will not be able to restore the admin rights before the end of the time span. This decreases the vulnerability for those accounts and does not force the admin to publicly discuss e.g. the medical treatment in a discussion about inactivity. Furthermore other admins can see that this curator/custodian is currently not available for admin activities and is aware about the vulnerability of admin accounts. By this mean we all can distinguish "lost interest" from "other reasons of inactivity" of security aware admins and custodians. This suggestion is not applicable to Wikiversity admins only. If we all think that makes sense then it could be shared to the admins of other Wikis (Wikipedia, Wikispecies, WikiBooks, ...) as well.
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)

Inactive Administrators[edit]

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) – Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs 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) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs
  • HappyCamper (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs
  • Juandev (Talk) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs
  • Lbeaumont (Talk) – Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs 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) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs - 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) – Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs - 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) – Blocks • Deletes • Imports • Moves • Protects • Contribs

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

Discussion About 9/11 Being Shut Down Yet Again For Political Reasons[edit]


I stopped using Wikipedia a long time ago when I realised it was being abused by special interest groups for political reasons. Stupidly, I thought Wikiversity might be different, so I opened a talk page to discuss 9/11. After one comment I am now unable to make edits on the site, because whoever responded has misrepresented what I wrote and used it as an excuse to blacklist me. I am absolutely sick of administrators doing this on Wikipedia to shut down discussion on pages which are supposed to be designed for discussion.

In short, he has misrepresented my edit in two ways to give himself a faux justification to shut me down.

Firstly, he has misrepresented an attack against somebody else's comment as an attack against their person. I wrote that one of the comments I had read was ignorant (which is not a personal attack), and he has pretended I wrote that the author was ignorant (which is a personal attack). Whether a comment is ignorant or not is a matter of objective fact and should not be confused with the subjectivity of personal differences.

Second, he claimed Wikiversity does not support conspiracy theories, which is a textbook political tactic he is using to smear me and prevent discussion.

It is also objectively false to claim that "Wikiversity does not support conspiracy theories". The historical record is absolutely littered with theories about conspiracies. What he actually means is that he doesn't want to discuss the facts so he's going smear me.

Look, I know how this is going to end up. I just want somebody, anybody to understand that your platform (i.e. anything with "Wiki" in front of it) is politically compromised on the issue of whether 9/11 may have been an inside job. It is absolutely impossible to present any facts or evidence which dispute the official account of events, and I can testify to that through the personal experience of trying to insert Professor Niels Harrit's study of the Ground Zero dust residue into the main Wikipedia page and being banned for it after a similar experience as I'm having right now.

In the extremely unlikely event anybody actually reads this who is neutral on the matter, please understand you have people working for you who are obviously very familiar with the government staple tactic of removing problematic elements and then misrepresenting them and/or their beliefs after the fact to give themselves a faux justification (i.e. cover their own arses). (The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheNomenclature (talkcontribs) 26 November 2019‎)

Your argument here is a shill gambit, and although not quite ad hominem is still a logical fallacy in any debate. To debate you must address the points by refuting or accepting them, just calling them ignorant does nothing and the only difference between a shill gambit and an ad hominem attack is what your aiming at. I am not familiar with your efforts at EN:WP, but I see no reason based on the above to take this any further. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 01:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Look friend, I am not particularly interested in your transparent smear attacks, which intend to discredit me without ever discrediting the argument I present. All that does is corroborate my assertion that your motives are political. It's really very simple. Occam's Razor is the principle that we begin with the simplest explanation and work our way outwards. Given that most people agree the collapse of the WTC buildings at least looked like a controlled demolition, NIST should have searched for explosives residue in order to rule that hypothesis out before moving forward. They did not do that, it is a fact they did not do that, and calling me names like "shill" is not going to alter that fact.

Furthermore, your insinuation that I did not directly refute the comment I responded to is ludicrous and false. The comment I responded to was: NIST found no evidence of alternative hypotheses. My response was: NIST did not look for evidence of alternative hypotheses. Could you possibly explain why you are not telling the truth?

In fact, don't bother. It isn't as if you are going to tell the truth, is it?(The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheNomenclature (talkcontribs) 26 November 2019‎)

Shill Gambit is a term defining a type of argument in a debate. Its not referring to a person. Or to you. You should sign your comments by the way with 4 tilde's ~~~~. My comment above was to close the discussion. This forum is for requesting assistance from Custodians. Not for continuing discussion that belongs on the talk page of your original comment. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Won't let me make a course...[edit]

Hey, I'm Mike. I am trying to make a course about Bible versions and Wikiversity describes it as:

This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: New User Exceeded New Page Limit.

Help please!

From, Mikeduke324. (discusscontribs) 15:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

And to add to that, I cannot contribute to my own discussion page.

--From, Mikeduke324. (discusscontribs) 15:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mikeduke324: Welcome! I see you've been around the wiki world for awhile now, but your account is new to Wikiversity. Due to excessive vandalism, we've had to limit new account activity. I've temporarily added you as a confirmed user. That may solve it, or you may need to give it a few more edits and a few more days until everything settles down. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I created the page. From, Mikeduke324. (discusscontribs) 16:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


WHOIS link is broken. Please change it to instead. See this change on Thanks. —Hasley 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

YesY Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)