Wikiversity:Request custodian action

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Request custodian action)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WV:RCA
Custodians' tool

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
Favicon.gif Action required

Favicon.gif Templates


Favicon.gif Development


Favicon.gif Reference


Favicon.gif Events and news

Custodian requests Entries
Edit protected 1


Extension:UploadWizard[edit]

Please install / activate the UploadWizard, or provide explicit instructions on what I need to do get it installed or activated. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly you need community consensus, because it influences all wikiversity.--Juan de Vojníkov (discusscontribs) 13:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I seem to recall we've had a discussion on this that may not have reached a conclusion. When I upload to commons I use the Upload Wizard and like it. It would be great to have it here! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Alright, can someone please go through and clean out Category:Files needing copyright information? Per Licensing policy and Wikiversity fair use, these files need to be deleted by last year. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 13:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikiversity:Resources with Files Pending Deletion, Wikiversity:User Pages with Files Pending Deletion, and Wikiversity:Unused Files Pending Deletion. More than 2,000 files have been either removed or tagged as Fair Use. The remaining files are part of student projects sponsored by User:Jtneill, and are awaiting his response as to how he wants them addressed. Yes, they could just be deleted. But because there were files outstanding for more than a year without license information, there's little urgency in addressing them at this point. We can wait for James to return from his break and provide a recommendation. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Contrary to the user's claim, there are files the Category that have only recently been uploaded. I have started a learning resource to handle this issue as learning-by-doing, it is at Licensing of Wikiversity media. The first file I looked at was not a Jtneill participant. We need a generic process that will efficiently handle the situation. Dave has done a yeoman job, already.
A brief summary of the learning project: this project will tag files involved in the educational process here as Fair Use, if any user so decides to tag them. These files, generically tagged, unilaterally, will then be listed, machine-readable, as Fair Use, being used on a specific page in mainspace (Licensing of Wikiversity media/Files), satisfying the purpose and letter of the policy. They will also be prodded for slow deletion. If the Prod is removed, then normal process will be followed. As part of this process, any user may delist the file from the licensing learning resource, as not having educational use, or perhaps being blatant copyright violation, speedy deletion tagging the file, which then enters the normal deletion process, i.e., it will be deleted, or the tag will be removed and WV:RFD may be used. Very ample notice will be provided to users whose files may face deletion, and not only mere notice, but a specific offer of support. It is about time we settle this issue. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
What is most important, in terms of urgency, is that files being kept because they are possibly either uploaded by the owner, are free content from elsewhere, or are possibly eligible for a fair use claim, be tagged as fair use, so that any re-users of content may rapidly, by machine, identify and handle these files distinctly from free content. What is eligible for Fair Use permanently is more stringent than a temporary claim. Hence the project creates a temporary claim, at most. If a permanent claim of fair use is made, or licensing information is supply, the page is removed from the licensing project listing; likewise, if the file is tagged for speedy deletion, the file is removed. Speedy deletion will put the file into the normal deletion queue, with dispute procedure well established.
This procedure will handle, within a few days, Category:Files needing copyright information, because it will supply fair use information and/or we will toss the files in the deletion queue. There may be other files, categorized differently, I have not investigated that.
There is work needed on Licensing of Wikiversity media. Perhaps those who are eager to clean up the situation will help. I agree that it is long overdue. So let's do it! What has been missing in the past is a coherent community process to satisfy WMF policy while at the same time pursuing Wikiveristy's unique educational process goals.
We should not toss a mess into the hands of custodians. Custodians should not have to make complex decisions, where it can be avoided, except as advised by the community. This process will create some safeguards, avoiding the extremes. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of an improperly licensed image with no appropriate fair use rationale, though it is in use on the Motivation and Emotion project. Source points to Australia domain DailyLife.com.au and permission is claimed to be 'open content' - not exactly true, because Fairfax.com's Terms of Use linked to at the bottom of that page expressly states "In particular, you may not use any Material on the Fairfax Network to establish, maintain or provide, or assist in establishing, maintaining or providing your own publications, Internet site or other means of distribution." If there are other images tagged inappropriately as being 'free' contrary to their purported sources, then the amount of unfree material in circulation may be bigger than just the amount tagged, which means a deeper review of these files is needed. I note that most of these images are part of Motivation and Emotion, James's project, as you have said; however, we can still do an impromptu early review of any such images while we wait for his response. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 08:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to go through every image and verify the licensing information if you wish. If there's something I can do with a simple bot that would help you build a list of images to investigate, please request it at Wikiversity:Bots/Requests. Separately, I would be happy to delete any files that are appropriately tagged for deletion as a violation of copyright. But if you discover that the information on a file is incorrect, I believe you have an obligation to correct that information, since you were bold enough to investigate it to begin with. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Some cleanup needed.[edit]

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

IP Block exempt[edit]

Please give me this right so I cannot be effected by IP blocks. It has happened to me at wikipedia before, and I would like this right so I won't be effected by IP blocks. My brother, or my class, will start editing Wikiversity. --~~Goldenburg111 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

N Not done - The best way for you to not be affected by IP blocks would be for you to encourage your brother and your classmates to not violate Wikiversity policy. If they aren't mature enough to edit here, don't encourage them to start. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
ok then. --~~Goldenburg111 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Shared internet access is a common problem, but it's much worse on Wikipedia than here. (Because some kid playing around is much more likely to do so on Wikipedia!
Goldenburg, back then, there was some vandalism of your pages, that may have come from other students at your school. Did that happen? If so, there may be no way to prevent a problem. If you find yourself IP blocked, you can still use email, if I'm correct, through the WV interface, and you can email a custodian that way. You may email me, you have my email address, and I'll forward it appropriately. Be sure to write down the IP address, the block message will tell you. If they are disruptive, you might get blamed for it, but only if checkuser is run. We can support you here on Wikiversity, I assume. IP block exemption is not granted, usually, unless there is a reason. The usual reason is *not* disruptive editing, but the use of open proxies. I doubt your brother or schoolmates will be doing that. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
thanks Abd. --~~Goldenburg111 23:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of GLAM newspapers without consensus[edit]

Special:Diff/1165966. As I was told before, if I had any beef with some of Abd's actions, I am to bring it to the attention of administrators rather than carrying the dispute myself. I dispute the changes Abd made in that diff, which were without consensus; the GLAM newspapers should be archived normally from the Colloquium, that is by the archive bot, and leaving them on the Colloquium at present did not do any harm. At the very least, they were a good read and it was convenient to access them from Wikiversity's main discussion page. That Abd sought to inconvenience me by this action, removing the GLAM newspapers before even attaining consensus to do so, leads me to post this notice here. I request administrative re-review of this unilateral action and if possible overturn of the removal of the GLAM newspapers. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 15:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been better to seek consensus before removing the Colloquium subscription for these articles. However, it also would have been better for consensus to have been requested before they were added. It wasn't. Taking personal offense in Abd's actions is inappropriate. This also doesn't require custodian action. There is a discussion at Wikiversity talk:Colloquium#Do we want the GLAM newsletter here?. You are free to join that conversation without edit warring with Abd. Make your case for why the articles should be returned and the subscription added or renewed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please update the license title to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. It is currently like this: "Attribution/Share-Alike". See the official website here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ . Also see m:MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright. Thanks, --Glaisher (discusscontribs) 08:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Abd (talk | email | contribs | stats)[edit]

I feel compelled to post here, because I had broken the interaction ban but I am not sure if that warrants a sanction. And in addition to that, I had posted to Abd's talkpage today here to warn him about the massive crosswiki undertaking of removing the speedy deletion tags on Augusto De Luca's userpages. I am afraid that this behavior, when shown to the global community at Meta (which I will notify shortly), may reflect badly on the state of Wikiversity. There is perhaps nothing that can be done about his actions on other wikis, but I am asking the community what, if anything, should be done toward Abd, whether it be stopping him or permitting him to do so. And what is the consensus for Augusto De Luca? Abd has tried ceaselessly to argue against consensus, first by excluding votes from "non-Wikiversitans", then disputing the close, and now possibly have us use more time to discuss this issue further after closure.

I am also asking for administrative review of User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Actions, whether this should be in the scope of Wikiversity. Although transparent, it might also be construed as a page facilitating disruption.

If necessary for Wikiversity's health, please block me for violating the interaction ban with Abd. But please consider, as a community, what to do with him. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

? --Goldenburg111 21:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict with user Goldenburg111) To my knowledge, Wikiversity is NOT responsible for the actions of anyone on another wiki! Each wiki is quite capable of taking care of themselves. If actions on another wiki affect us here, such as Commons deleting images we are using, then we consider actions here. I have been reading all of the statements written on all sides of the Augusto De Luca matter. In my opinion, previous consensus on the sanctity of harmless user pages was clearly violated with the most recent consensus. I believe it is inappropriate and disruptive for us to consider the matter further.--Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 21:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
However Wikiversity is responsible for evaluating whether resources further Wikiversity's mission, what standards of ethics Wikiversity wishes to encourage or discourage, and what activities are within Wikiversity's scope. -- darklama  22:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Darklama, that's true. However, the actions I am carefully taking, are not being taken here, they are cross-wiki. However, because they relate to the study I undertook of this case, I am documenting what I'm doing there, that's all. What I'm doing is allowed on every wiki, AFAIK. Any user may tag files for speedy deletion, and any user may untag them. The deletion is then a contested one, and a different process is followed. TeleCom has been unclear on that, revert warring over speedy deletion tag removal on Beta. See my report on meta on this: at the end.
As to the interaction ban, I waive enforcement of that for him with respect to his first edit to my user page. His further response was gratuitously tendentious. As to filing a report here, that was disruptive. There is no emergency.
So far, the only person to complain about this is TeleCom. Others certainly know about it. Two files have been deleted probably as a result of my setting this up and starting. A Russian sysop has commented on my study talk page. It's not like this is secret. Undoing it systematically -- I'd definitely recommend getting clear consensus for that, because it would probably violate local policies) -- would take minutes. I have the diffs all set up, load them, Undo, paste in a reason, and done. 50 edits? 10 minutes work. I am taking a lot longer, because I'm translating the edit summary into the local language. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, educational scope. The activity is very clearly educational, for me. I do intend to move the study into mainspace. It's not ready for that. At this point, it's my study, but comment is particularly welcome on the attached Talk pages, and if anything there is offensive, please let me know. My goal is clarification of wiki policy, and study of how wikis work. Any other questions, my talk page is open. (Not to TeleCom, he's worn out his welcome. He could email me, though, I wouldn't blow a fuse.) --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it is a disruption. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

N Not done I am closing this conversation with a decision that no action is being taken. No one is eligible for any sort of disciplinary action as of this point. Thenub314 (discusscontribs) 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

TeleComNasSprVen[edit]

TeleComNasSprVen yesterday violated his interaction ban to raise an issue he considered important, to prevent me from doing what he imagined would be cross-wiki disruptive. AGF, I did not raise a request here about that, but he did. However, today, he has again violated the ban, just to claim that he was right.[2] (He's not right, and this has nothing to do with "grudge", but that's irrelevant). His indef block was lifted through his agreement to an interaction ban with me.[3]. Please restore the indef block, he has shown himself unable to hold to a simple agreement, and he is clearly aware of the ban. I would notify him except that he has considered notifications from me disruptive. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

In that diff, I left an archived note to others who may be watching the page, not necessarily directed at Abd himself. And in any case he has also restored it after retraction so as to prove the disruption here. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Attempted removal was an additional violation of interaction ban. The removal was based on this request, apparently. Above, he acknowledges using my Talk page to provide notices to others. (That is normally legitimate in the absence of an interaction ban or specific request, that's part of what warnings are about.) The removal, like the original post, distracted me from my work, because I must review talk page notifications promptly, given what I'm doing. Per his attempted removal, I struck his comment with a note; I had already written and was attempting to save my response and the removal caused edit conflict, which then takes even more time to handle. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
N Not done TeleComNasSprVen you can make a point without posting on Abd's page. Action won't be taken by me, because TeleComNasSprVen does have valid concerns, but he needs to find another way to address them than to post on Abd's page. TeleComNasSprVen knows the responsibility to not post on his talkpage, and is expected to not do it by the community. I think no action should be taken, but if an another admin differs in opinion I won't stop them from issuing a temporary short block. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Study about collaborative production[edit]

Dear Wikiversity custodian

We hope this message finds you well. We are writing you as part of the European Project P2Pvalue.eu in order to invite you to take part in a survey. The survey is part of a research project about how certain design aspects might explain collaborative communities' capacity to generate value and resilience. Wikiversity is one of a sample of 300 cases of collaborative production we are asking to complete the sample. We identified 350 though the Directory of common - based peer production (http://directory.p2pvalue.eu/). Research results will be published with open access licences, and if you so choose, we will send it to you when the study is finished. The resulting raw data will be anonymized and will be made publicly available with a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA) in the P2Pvalue project website.

Thank you in advance for taking part. The survey should not take you more than 15 minutes.


To participate, please click on the link below. Sincerely, The P2P value project & IGOPnet team (researchers of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)



Click here to do the survey: http://p2p-value.limequery.org/index.php/survey/index/sid/363169/newtest/Y/lang/en (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.83.182.7 (talkcontribs) .)

This message was also sent to English Wikinews. Microchip08 (discusscontribs) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitelisting ereticopedia.org[edit]

I am inviting a published academic to participate in Wikiversity, and to build resources here relating to the history of the Inquisition, translating them from Italian. For this, I need a whitelisting of a web site that he is editorial manager of, ereticopedia.org.

The site is an academic collaboration, published by an academic press, w:Aracne. Why this is blacklisted is a long story, it's been claimed that it was spammed, but it will not be spammed here, it will be properly used, -- and every instance of it elsewhere that I was able to find, about three, were also proper.

To whitelist it, add the regex code
\bereticopedia\.org
to Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist.

If anyone is interested in the history of the blacklisting, see the denied blacklist removal request on meta.[4]

While you are at it, the whitelisting for http://lenr-canr.org may be removed, as you can see. I eventually got that delisted at meta. It was not easy. That action was cited in my community cold fusion topic-ban on Wikipedia, ah, those were the days! It also had never been spammed....

Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is translations from Italian to English necessary in order to teach, learn, or research the history of the Inquisition? What material about the Inquisition does this website include that cannot be taught, learned, or researched from another website? How does links to this website improve participants' understanding of the Inquisition over other websites? I think linking to Italian works would improve participants' understanding at Italian Wikiversity rather then here at English Wikiversity where reasonably few people may know Italian and may be able to benefit from trying to read any linked pages. Are any pages about the Inquisition on the website written in English? -- darklama  13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Darklama. This web site appears to be the most comprehensive compilation of material on heretics and the Inquisition in existence, by far, or certainly in existence for ready access. It is entirely academically compiled, see [ www.ereticopedia.org/credits ], the academic supervisory board and the editorial board, and [ www.ereticopedia.org/contributori ] the full list of contributors, all academically affiliated. You are correct that few here will know Italian; therefore the translation project, which then serves for education in translation, learning by doing, which is a spectacular way to learn a language.
None of the pages on the site are written in English yet, except [ www.ereticopedia.org/start-en ] and [ www.ereticopedia.org/about ]. Notice this: We are open to and we will examine with pleasure all collaboration proposals.
I am in email communication Daniele Santarelli, the "editorial secretary" for the project, and he is friendly to this.
I hope to attract academics to Wikiversity to work on this. I will be assisting with the translation project, as an English editor here or there. The first attempted registration for participation by an involved professor here was immediately globally locked with no cross-wiki edits; I am not detailing the global history here, it is huge. Effectively, though, a real-world person is being considered globally banned, without there ever being a discussed ban anywhere, it is almost entirely the work of a single steward, and addressing this immediately at meta appears to be impossible.
I do not yet have permission to copy material from ereticopedia here, which would include permission to translate here. That's in process. But I can begin developing the resources with reference to pages on the site, and it is irritating to have to put up inactive links, requiring the user copy and paste to the address bar, taking extra time with every link, and there will be many. The page should be whitelisted here based on my intention to create resources, and based on the quality and potential utility of the site. I will start creating resources anyway, with inactive links.
The whitelisting here will have no global effect. In the future, it could have an impact on delisting requests, but only if actual legitimate usage appears. Whitelisting has actually been suggested on meta, for any desired use.
The administrators who manage the global blacklist have often said that there is no problem with blacklisting useful pages, because editors can always get them whitelisted. I have, in fact, reviewed whitelisting practice. It is not wiki, "quick." I have seen legitimate whitelisting requests on the English Wikipedia sit for months. Ordinary users rarely request whitelisting; instead, they either abandon the edit -- too much trouble to handle it -- or, less frequently, they use a workaround, as I am here. Requesting whitelisting is rare.
Ordinarily, it should not be necessary for an editor in good standing to prove that a link is appropriate before adding it. But what just happened here is common: an administrator comes up with an opinion questioning the possible usage. Then the user needs to respond to that. We should set a simple policy on this. It's easy to add to the whitelist, and easy to take something out if there is a problem. It should therefore be easy to get a whitelisting of specific pages, or of an entire site if the site has extensive materials. This case is where an entire site is useful, I have seen no problem pages there at all.
The spam blacklist was designed to stop spam. Almost all blacklistings are of sites that are useless for the projects. It's the exceptions that are the problem, where the blacklisting is really used to punish "promotion," or, with lenr-canr.org, arose out of editorial conflict and personal dispute, with a pile of created -- and misleading -- arguments, no actual spamming.
The case here is an extreme one, where by ordinary blacklisting procedures, there would be no chance of listing if requested, because requests need to provide reasons, and evidence, or they will be denied. It wasn't a requested blacklisting, in this case, there was no link abuse, it was simply done by an individual steward, with no explanation. There still is no explanation. But I do know the reason, I've done weeks of research on this issue. The reason is irrelevant here.
I have, in the past, gotten two web sites delisted, one was lenr-canr.org, the other was http://lyrikline.org]]. The blacklisting of lyrikline did major damage to the projects, with articles on poets, and it took even longer to get it delisted. Basically, the administrators "assume good faith" for whoever added a page to the blacklist, but not of other editors who want to use it or who added the links in the first place. The only strategy for removal that I've seen work is substantial whitelisting, and even then, it can still take years. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can normally add or remove links. When there are disagreements about what links to include or exclude, discussion may be initiated to seek consensus. People may discuss the merit, pros and cons of links, and the link's utility. I think understanding why and how links to a specific website are needed are appropriate considerations for whitelisting. Wikiversity:External links is/was a proposed attempt to define Wikiversity's policy on external links. Item 12 of Wikiversity:External links#Links normally to be avoided suggests websites with non-English language content should normally be avoided. As you may not recall, I whitelisted lenr-canr.org at English Wikiversity because exploration of fringe science is within Wikiversity's scope. -- darklama  16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done The about page is in English and helps to clarify this may reasonably be within scope. -- darklama  16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Darklama. I will address the policy/guideline issue on Wikiversity talk:External links. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing in delinking what MIGHT be spam?[edit]

See: Wikiversity_talk:Colloquium#Leaflet_For_Wikiversity_At_Wikimania_2014
https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_talk:Colloquium&oldid=1197498
I'm not sure why a wiki needs leaflets. And, the leaflets should be put on commons.--guyvan52 (discusscontribs) 12:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I reverted your changes there.
  • The link is to a WMF wiki. This would almost never be spam. Look at the original wiki, you can see in page history many editors. This is a real project.
  • The project is to print paper leaflets for wiki projects (presumably WMF projects, including Wikipedia Wikiprojects, but not limited to that), for two purposes: distribution at Wikimania 2014, and distribution in other locations. I assume the leaflets will be hosted. I don't agree that Commons would necessarily be the best host for the leaflets. They probably would be hosted, as to on-line documents, wherever the project is located. These may have time-limited value, as proposed. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania is a real world conference that is held every year to discuss the Wikimedia projects, and the Wikimania Wiki helps to coordinate the efforts. I don't understand why a new wiki is started each year, or why Wikimania isn't being hosted at Wikiversity because that was asked about some years ago and there was support for it. I think the only odd thing about the announcement is on some projects it was posted to the content namespace where more people are likely to read it and at other projects it was posted to talk namespace where less people are likely to read it. I wonder how the decision of where to post the announcement on each project was decided. -- darklama  16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Guy vandegrift: Responding to the question asked, yes, you did the right thing, in that you questioned the contribution as being non-standard (on a talk page and advertising a free service), and opted to protect Wikiversity and Wikiversity participants until more information was available. Please continue to do so. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it was right and wrong. Yes, his motive was laudable, and mistakes can be fixed. No, he could have easily verified that this was not spam. Yes, he asked here. No, with less work than it took to ask here, he could have discovered the situation himself. So, yes and no. Basically, Wikiversity is for learning by doing, and I assume that he is learning by doing. Right, Guy?
As to the placement on Talk, I don't think there was a "decision," just some rather inexperienced volunteer work. I considered moving it to the Colloquium page and just haven't done it. Anyone could. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

184.7.83.128 disruptive activity[edit]

Special:Contributions/184.7.83.138 is active at high rate with vandalism/test edits on inappropriate pages. I'm looking at and will certainly revert some contributions. Possibly all. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, trolling, see latest edit [5]. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done. Requested steward action with [6]. Took 3 minutes, thanks, Ajraddatz. One week block. All edits reverted except harmless test pages. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the IP did register an account and is up to it again, this time as User:Dusty3014. No response to talk page warning. Vandalizing a template with high usage, Template:Schoolblock. Some of the templates he touched were obsolete, should have been deleted long ago; others should be at least semi-protected. I will review the user's contributions when the user is stopped, it's easier to do it en masse than piecemeal. (Of course, anyone can do that. Indeed, if this user promptly reverts his changes, he should not be blocked. I've suggested that on user talk.) There is, so far, no global activity for the user, so I have not reported on meta. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
YesY Done - Blocked by Darklama. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

User:William2056 spam-only account[edit]

Spambot pattern registration, two spam pages created in Turkish. We need a Template:Liar Liar Pants on Fire. See also previous revision of user page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done - All contributions removed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Abd's disruptions[edit]

This was Abd's statement [8] "To avoid what led to the block I have a clear intention: not to become involved in Wikiversity governance and general maintenance. It was not welcome, even where I was enforcing long-established policy. I will work only on educational resources of interest to me and value to users." Yet he continues politics and getting involved in governance and general maintenance. Also conducts in harassment, systematic disruption, anarchic, and controlling behavior. He has been blocked from other wikis due to his behavior.

Conducted in sneaky behavior, in part by using email for resolution, then throwing his [[[9]] on my page, after temporarily letting him on it. Big mistake. This is because I took action, because the previous action taken was a joke. However, I did not want to be involved in that particular discussion, and Abd used that as an opportunity to use that for his harassment. Dave Braunschweig supported his and Leucosticte's ill behaviors. [10] is justification of why I blocked of a certain user; or look Leucosticte's edit history prior to May https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Leucosticte&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=5. From the above link, abd unethically tried to pressure me to quit, because he had no case. Abd knows he has no case, and this is the only way he feels like he can get his way of promoting un-tolerated behavior.

Example of disruption by Abd pointed out by TeleComNasSprVen [11] then closing it with [12]. He continues to cause disruption about 'Augusto de Luca' on other wikis.

Abd knows he is not allowed on user's pages, such as Ottava Rima's [13] but annoys on his page anyways.

Constantly wars crosswiki with telecom. Example of hypocritical clownery from abd, [14] Abd's interactions are an irritant to many users.

Plays these kinds of revert games [15]. Argues that these [16] pictures are "educational" or something, and that everyone has to go through redtape to delete it. 200px|. One picture there is potentially educational, but the others are selfies.

[17] comment about behavior by Vituzzu.

Seeking permanent ban, especially of email for Abd. Unblocking him again will only cause a headache for wiki users. I'm also bringing this to the attention of meta-wiki. His behavior harms wikiprojects. I've taken a semi-break since this mess.- Sidelight12 Talk 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Abd has been a bad apple throughout his time on this project. I tried to stop his abuse before and was desysopped when Wikiversity was hijacked by those connected to Wikipedia Review. Good luck, because you will most likely end up banned before the obvious abusers are removed. I am 100% for a ban of Abd. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in those diffs that seems to justify a block or a ban. Leucosticte (discusscontribs) 01:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sidelight12: The first link is from September 2013. Abd clarified his intentions in January 2014 at [18]. The next links are from March and April 2014, followed by a jump back to December 2013. The 'revert games' appears to be an edit conflict in June 2014, followed by a return in focus to March and April 2014. Is there anything current supporting this request, or is it only based on the previous activity? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  • This is about his actions posted above. I intended to get to it, from that time, and I procrastinated by taking a semi-break, because I am sick of that. The promise he made was for him to be unblocked, not to be renegotiated by himself. His supposed renegotiation was not terms for his unblock. Also, that wasn't an edit conflict, it was obnoxiousness. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a MediaWiki bug that sometimes, with a one minute edit gap, accepts an edit with no edit conflict warning. Because there was a one minute gap here, this likely happened. My edit requesting speedy close could not have been written in one minute (saved at 2:53), so for sure I loaded that page without having read Sidelight's additional comment (at 2:52). Sidelight actually removed my comment ([19]) instead of simply restoring his. I fixed it. The final discussion as archived: [20]. --Abd (discusscontribs) 09:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a request page, not a discussion page; user bans are not considered here and cannot be decided here, that would be for Wikiversity:Community Review. Sidelight placed a series of references to this RCA filing,[21] apparently to canvass negative comment, instead of showing cause for block. Even if the above were immediate, none of the linked activity would be blockworthy, nor was I warned over any of it. But it is not immediate, and concerns resolved matters, all except for my suggestion, linked above, that Sidelight12 resign as a probationary custodian, which I repeat now, given the above demonstration. --Abd (discusscontribs) 03:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Standard wikilawyering from Abd done to distract. This is an appropriate place for ban discussions. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
How is that canvassing when 3 out of 7 of the people notified are you and the people who support you? The people were notified, because they were mentioned. 2 others are probably more neutral than anything. More illogical statements from you that don't address the matter at all. You think anyone who doesn't cater to you should resign. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
With those notices, Sidelight poked at least three hornet's nests. I am not responding to most of Sidelight's claims, nor arguing for the desysop of Sidelight, because this is not the page for that. It is not even the page for me to argue against being blocked, though that would be allowed. (My user talk page would be the place for that, and if any custodian has concerns, considering a possible block, please raise them with me on my talk page.) Bans are a community decision, not a sysop action. (That is crucial to global bans, which are predicated on local bans, which do not arise from sysop action.)
As to the thinking and Sidelight's generalization, I have never suggested a sysop resign, until this case. Globally, I've been highly involved in three possible desysop processes. In the first, the sysop was troutslapped by ArbCom, in the second, the admin was desysopped, and in the third (here), the same. Ban and desysop discussions can be highly disruptive, train wrecks and do not build projects. I avoid them until and unless they are necessary. --Abd (discusscontribs) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Meta RfCs are often filed by clueless users, and two stewards have already commented that this is purely an en.wikiversity issue. There is no meta issue raised. --Abd (discusscontribs) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No cause for block was alleged here, and blocks for ancient history are highly discouraged. (See the proposed -- and long-standing -- Wikiversity:Blocking policy.) As there is no stated basis for sysop action here, regarding me, I request this be closed. Open, this is an invitation to useless and disruptive argument (in either direction). --Abd (discusscontribs) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

N Not done - The request is for a permanent ban of User:Abd. We don't have the ability to permanently ban, only to block. A ban would require Meta action, which has been rejected as a local issue. According to Wikiversity:Blocking policy, 'Blocks for behavior that has ceased or may happen in the future are inappropriate. Blocks are to deter continuing recent behavior.' The behavior described here is not recent and not continuing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not closed. your "not done" is a conflict of interest. And an involved party, cannot close it. I'm sure one of his uninvolved friends will try. Again, "blocking policy" is an incomplete proposal. - Sidelight12 Talk 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A community has the ability to make their policies within the framework that WMF and the global community provides. A community ban at a local wiki has been an acceptable process at other wikis, and it would seem to be an acceptable practice here. If there was to be a holistic global ban, that would have to be undertaken at meta, and one of the evidence sources is the actions taken by local wikis to deal with problematic users. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Addendum. To differentiate between a ban from a block. A block is on an account, a ban is on the person, irrespective of the account(s) and IP address(es). Generally a ban is a longer and bigger discussion and conducted by the whole community, a block is usually something undertaken by admin on their investigation. Often the two meet in the middle, however, the concept of "not welcome under any circumstance" and taking all means to prevent or mitigate their actions are usually pretty specific. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Billinghurst has explained this correctly, as I'd expect. A block is a custodian decision (thus a request for block belongs on this page); a ban is a community decision (and the discussion takes place on WV:Community Review. Other than to enforce the consensus at Community Review, blocks are ad hoc and are, as it were, emergency actions, because a CR may take a long time. Further, a CR takes up substantial user time, there may be careful presentation of evidence, etc. There is a global ban process on meta, and it requires at least two community-discussed (or arbitration committee decided) bans as a prerequisite. --Abd (discusscontribs) 11:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction and clarification. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 11:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I am very concerned about Dave Braunschweig continuing to be a custodian. The lack of basic information is a gross error, and what I have seen of his statements on other pages verifies in my mind that he is not fit to have advance privileges here. His attempt to close shows a willingness to take inappropriate actions in pursuit of a mentality that is opposite of what is best for Wikiversity. I cannot take any of his statements above as being appropriate because they show gross error and are done in the defense of someone who is clearly a major problem at this Wiki. 173.153.11.93 (discuss) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not a request for custodian action (local users, not even custodians and bureaucrats, cannot remove custodian rights, that must be done by stewards, who will look for community consensus, absent emergency) and involves matters which have been resolved. Dave Braunschweig, after these matters were brought up, was confirmed as a permanent custodian with very high consensus. If someone believes that a custodian is acting inappropriately, due process is to first communicate with the custodian, on the custodian's talk page (if not off-wiki by email). If not satisfied, then there is WV:Custodian feedback where a cooperative resolution may be sought, and, beyond that, there is WV:Community review, which is our only custodian removal process.
Because this is out of place and disruptive, and particularly as it was anonymously posted, I intend to close and archive this section, -- as I requested before -- but will first allow time for objection by any responsible WV user. --Abd (discusscontribs) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on School:Information technology/GCSE[edit]

Massive, IP and new accounts. Perhaps semiprotect, consider blocks. (Prior vandalism was identified as "students," by User:Khairdean, "charming lot," eh?) Perhaps the school IP should be soft-blocked and let them sort it out. Learning experience. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging Khairdean about this, I'm concerned about this user's response, see [23], which accepted vandal signups and content, thus complicating review. At this point, all vandalism-only accounts should be indeffed until the smoke clears, but talk page access and email should be left open unless abused. As these are likely teenagers, in a problematic social environment, we should show zero tolerance for disruption, but easy acceptance if they commit to cooperative participation here. I am not warning on talk pages for process reasons, I assume Khairdean will communicate with them. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

specific accounts[edit]

vandalism only
apparently legitimate
possibly legitimate
--Abd (discusscontribs) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocks in. Will add comments to user pages as time allows. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)