Wikiversity

Wikiversity:Notices for custodians/Archive/5

< Wikiversity:Notices for custodians | Archive
Filing cabinet icon You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.

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)[reply]

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 (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

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


@Abd: I've replied "not done" to your WV:RCA.[1] Please do not engage in "investigations" on wv that resemble checkuser activity. This is a breach of Wikimedia Foundation policy. The appropriate forum for a wiki that lacks local checkusers is to submit requests through meta. (As you well know, having done it numerous times.) This should only be done in moderation and when it is unambiguously necessary. Any attempt to create pages (in any en-wv namespace including User:) containing cross-IP correlations will be immediately removed and you will be blocked. If you have any existing pages on en-wv containing such material please blank them and tag with speedy delete. --mikeu talk 01:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not created any pages with resemblance of checkuser activity, but I have reported already-identified socks, based on collecting data from checkusers and sock puppet investigations elsewhere. And I have studied the problem of RfDs and other disruptive process filed by SPAs. That problem has been acknowledged by custodians.
There was canvassing for that RfD, which is what I showed by what you think was a "resemblance to checkuser activity." Canvassing, completely visible and entirely aside from possible socking, The request for custodian action was based on the duck test from recent and many blocks here. (I had reverted an RfD filing and requested review (because of obvious conflict of interest). Because nobody responded to that original request, that RfD was reopened and the mess created that you deplored.) I did not create the disruption here, there has been long-term disruption (and already addressed by meta stewards) brought numerous times to Wikiversity by an LTA; the documentation on that is on meta, pretty much a standard LTA report, and those documentation pages have been semiprotected by a steward, because of LTA attack. Marshall Sumter was already responding, though a little confused, thinking that the issue was whether or not the IPs were the same user. That is possible, but was a secondary issue. Canvassing was the most significant issue, and that can be seen, laid out, in what you blanked.
Reporting suspected sock puppets for checkuser was done on meta. It is not a violation of Foundation policy to state suspicions, if they have any reasonable foundation. Wikiversity has been under attack, I became involved defending a user who had been impersonated and then blocked here, with his resource deleted, by the same kinds of irrelevant arguments presented in this last episode. If you don't want users to defend Wikiversity, we should take this to the community.
You have not been paying attention to what's been happening. I'm not thrilled by the threat. Your response is exactly what the LTA is looking for. They create a big fuss and then hope that someone who complains about it gets sanctioned by an administrator who is not paying attention.
I am not undertaking a search for what you requested. What I have done here has already been reviewed by a custodian. I will not only not create such pages here, I will probably not create anything here at all. Too dangerous. Good night. I'll watch to see what happens next. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, pages resembling CheckUser activity were created at Wikiversity (User:Abd/SPA disruption), have been created at meta (see user's contributions), and have been created off-wiki. I will not post links to them in this venue, but they have been sent to me and they have been sent to the WMF. I second MikeU's warning that such activity is inappropriate. The community should consider whether activity that would lead to a block here should be knowingly accepted elsewhere. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted User:Abd/SPA disruption as this is clearly inappropriate for Wikiversity (or any other WMF project.) Custodians should unconditionally block Abd if any attempt is made to recreate this content or if there is any similar activity on en-wv. @Abd: I'm very concerned about your global edits. There is a clear pattern of excessive, frivolous, and nuisance abuse of checkuser requests on meta and commons dating back to September.[2] This will not be tolerated at Wikiversity and this cross-wiki activity could result in a local block if it continues. --mikeu talk 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that one of the global block requests on meta was granted in part on a request for reconsideration, and there is discussion of the checkuser request that might or might not change things there. Anything more that I might say here is shown there. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abd is reverting admin deletion requests. [3] and also filing deletion requests [4]. Surely abd should be blocked by now. How long is he going to continue this? 82.132.229.229 (discuss) 00:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I'm not an admin at meta. Someone who is an admin there reviewed my speedy deletion request and declined it for a reason that I accept. I don't plan to RfD those two pages (but others are welcome to do so if you think you have a good policy reason that they will accept.) Abd has the right to request review of a deletion. It is up to meta admins to decide. Please, everyone, stop following each other around the wikis and poking each other. This is doing no one any good. I ask that non-Custodians please stop editing this page. Any requests for custodians can be posted at WV:RCA. --mikeu talk 01:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santions

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)[reply]

Warning

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)[reply]

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 (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just FYI, there is no template {{tl:Pod}}. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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 (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scope

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 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" This also confirms that the person requesting deletion be pointed to RfD. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prod

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 (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletion request

The only instance on record was settled by consensus, including the above bureaucrat. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improved search in deleted pages archive

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: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. 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: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0

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)[reply]

WMF Global Ban

FYI - See [7]. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need help reviewing a Global RFC

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)[reply]

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements

The Wikimedia Foundation security team is implementing a new password policy and requirements. You can learn more about the project on MediaWiki.org.

These new requirements will apply to new accounts and privileged accounts. New accounts will be required to create a password with a minimum length of 8 characters. Privileged accounts will be prompted to update their password to one that is at least 10 characters in length.

These changes are planned to be in effect on December 13th. If you think your work or tools will be affected by this change, please let us know on the talk page.

Thank you!

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

Requesting block/lock

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 (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@IanDBeacon: All I can do locally is delete. I would recommend posting for a global lock from a steward at m:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Already done. --IanDBeacon (discuss • contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions for ethics policy violations

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)[reply]

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 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (discuss • contribs) 14:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ DCDuring (23 April 2010). "landing page". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2018-04-25. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

sock puppet sleeper accounts

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:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sitenotice?

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)[reply]

I checked the documentation and I can't find any explanation. I've created https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T218970 . We'll see what they say. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

{{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 (discuss • contribs) 04:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   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)[reply]

This is not a local issue, and local edits don't resolve the problem for long. It is a MediaWiki bug, being addressed by https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T218918 . -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of resolution in Wikiversity:Newsletters/Tech_News#Tech_News:_2019-13. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need a block

Hi, please block Special:Contributions/212.219.94.2 for Vandalism. Thanks. Tomybrz Bip Bip 11:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Atom Saleb MW

Atom Saleb MW seems to be playing with Wikiversity. --Martin Urbanec (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Review/Marshallsumter

Please see Wikiversity:Community Review/Marshallsumter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DErnestWachter

See Wikipedia:User talk:DErnestWachter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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 (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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 (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave Braunschweig: This is something of a policy question, but are non-custodians able to assist in sifting through the edits? --MoonyTheDwarf (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MoonyTheDwarf: Your assistance would be most welcome. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@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 (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student Projects from India

I am in contact with the instructor from India, trying to find a home project for his students to work under. For now, I am tagging them with {{subpage}}. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now impacting those who monitor Wikiversity for spam/vandalism. I haven't heard back, but in the mean time, I've created Student Projects and will move the pages there. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave Braunschweig: Seems like that should be at Wikiversity:Student Projects to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Wikiversity:Student Projects would describe the policy and/or procedure. The content itself should either be in main space or Draft: space. We wouldn't want the students editing Wikiversity: space content by default. I've seen what happens when they do that from some of the cleanup efforts. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HLA

I just found some subpages of HLA which was moved to Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen. Many of these have only one edit with some section headers or are empty. Others have some maps or other info. Most are orphaned. The main contributor left 8 years ago. Manytof the pages have been moved to Category:HLA CWD Alleles but the ones above still retain the original name. Thoughts? --mikeu talk 01:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mu301: The Genetics/Human Leukocyte Antigen subpage is averaging one view per day. The map pages average just over zero views per day. The map pages don't add value, but deleting them doesn't add more space to the database, either. If it was a valuable resource, I would prefer to break it out under its own name of Human Leukocyte Antigen. But it's not that popular. The easiest solution would be to just move the remaining pages under the current subpage. I can do it by bot if that's what we decide should be done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. I have a slight preference for deleting pages with 0 content and no links but I think it is a waste of time for a human to work on that. I support whatever solution is easiest to implement by bot. --mikeu talk 19:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mu301:  Y Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leutha - Custodianship

FYI - User talk:Leutha#Custodianship -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no response. Please visit Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Leutha and vote to keep or remove custodian rights for User:Leutha. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

If anyone comes across pages created by Remi, Emesee, Answer, et al (see CU results at linked CR) I would suggest speedy delete instead of prod per Wikiversity:Community Review/User:Wikademia. The sock master was indef banned for prolific and disruptive creation of nonsense pages. In particular, ancient pages that contain little but {{whas}} and {{we}}. We're still cleaning up the mess a decade later... --mikeu talk 12:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cross wiki disruption

Nobody60 (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) Warned on en-wp for link spam and indef blocked on de-wv for disruptive creation WV:NOT material. I noticed that there is quite a bit of page creation here also. Pages like A yogi life appear to be self promotional and lack learning objectives. I'm tempted to delete many of the contributions or at least move to user or draft space. Thoughts? --mikeu talk 01:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WV:NOT content should be replaced with {{Advise}} if it is encyclopedia or other project content, and deleted if it promotes external sites. I would separate the self-promotion into two categories. There is some content that is personal, and could just be a user-space move. There is other content that promotes him professionally, and that probably crosses the line and should be deleted. What remains should be a subpage of an appropriate learning project rather than a main landing page. And, if in doubt, there is precedent for moving it to Draft: space if you don't know where it goes, but you're confident it doesn't belong where it is. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians/Archive/5&oldid=2191758"