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


print pdf problem[edit]

Hello I see that the print pdf tool can not create the pages properly. For example

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Fluid_Mechanics_for_MAP/Fluid_Dynamics

in the above page the headers do nto apear properly.

Moreover, it tries to make 2 column pages. One year ago it was only one column.

How can I solve the problem?

Best

Özgür

You can use Special:Book to control the number of columns and paper size for your PDF. Regarding headings, I suspect it is a result of conflicts with the formula rendering. I don't see heading problems in other saved book collections. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Sidelight12[edit]

User:Sidelight12 (talk) (contributions) was a probationary custodian. As a consequence of wheel-warring with a permanent custodian, Dave Braunschweig, Sidelight12 was desysopped, and this removal of rights was confirmed by Sidelight12's mentor, the bureaucrat Jtneill, October 17, 2014.[1]

If Jtneill had seen the removal as inappropriate, he could have immediately undone it, as a bureaucrat, or, if he wished to be more careful, he could have requested community approval or rejection of restoral.

Sidelight did not continue any further disruptive activity, nor did the user continue to contribute to Wikiversity in any way, until extending his complaint about Dave -- and me --, November 9, repeated on WV:Notices for custodians and WV:Custodian feedback.

The topic had previously been raised on the Notices page because Dave had blocked Sidelight12, while involved, and such an action should always be brought immediately to the custodial community for review. I would have suggested this RCA page instead, because it would be an immediate request for action (i.e., review), but the Notices page was reasonable to use. All custodians should be watching all three pages, but reports and requests should not be duplicated across these pages.

Dave archived the rest of the discussion on that page, and, it appears may have inadvertently archived a snippet of new discussion.[2]

Because this entire discussion was now outside of the function of the Notices page, I verified that what was left by Dave was redundant to the complaint on the Feedback page, and then removed it.

  • 22:04, 9 November 2014 (→‎Dave Braunschweig's inappropriate behavior: rm duplicate post on Custodian Feedback, which would be the appropriate page anyway, this not being a Notice for Custodians.)

There are strong reasons for preventing the same discussion from taking place in more than one venue.

Sidelight12 reverted both the archiving and my removal.

  • 23:51, 10 November 2014 m (Undo revision 1268427 by Abd (talk) This is the appropriate place for it. Stop trying to hide it. Not a duplicate post. and it belongs where it is.)
  • 02:09, 11 November 2014(Undo revision 1268306 by Dave Braunschweig (talk) revert attempt to hide last comment.)

Setting aside the possibly accidental removal of that snippet added to an old discussion, this diff compares the new content on the Notices page with the new content on Custodian feedback. The only difference I see is formatting and a new signature.

Sidelight is arguing tendentiously, and revert warring, over matters that are resolved. This is disruptive. The complaint on Custodian Feedback is procedurally allowed, but such complaints may also result in sanctions if continued with repetitious or uncivil argument. Sidelights arguments are both.

I cannot warn Sidelight12 of this request for action directly, because of restrictions the user has declared on his User talk page. However, Sidelight will undoubtedly see this, and this will be linked from the Notices page or the attached Talk page. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested action[edit]

Please warn Sidelight12 about incivility and disruptive behavior. If the warning is disregarded, please block as appropriate. --Abd (discusscontribs) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting warned for posting about someone's inappropriate behavior? I wasn't necessarily seeking an RCA, that was a notice. This is nothing but hushing. I haven't revert warred. I reverted once, because I had posted 6 hours before it was archived, and you tried to hide other stuff. You are abusing this page. Your actions right now are corrupt and abusive. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"There are strong reasons for preventing the same discussion from taking place in more than one venue." Then why did you drag it out across many venues? - Sidelight12 Talk 21:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the absence of an emergency, and there is no emergency yet, Sidelight will be warned about behavior recognized or interpreted as disruptive, by a neutral warning custodian, or it is possible that I will be warned (or both). I have, not, however, "dragged it across many venues," and wild, unsubstantiated charges like this are part of the problem here. There is a progression in wiki dispute resolution, and it involves escalation when a problem cannot be resolved at the lower levels. Pages have specific purposes, and I have respected those purposes. This is the first time I have requested custodian action regarding this user. Hopefully, the matter will end here. If not, then there is one more formal escalation available on Wikiversity. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dave Braunschweig[edit]

This first time I posted, it wasn't necessarily a request for action, I realized this. Now with this continuing abuses from Abd and Dave, I'm posting it here. The other pages would be deleted, but they are the ones who dragged it in to those venues. Abd's behavior is abuse, and Dave enables it. Now you've asked for an RCA. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

[3], Snowolf said he missed acting on Dave's self unblock, when there was an emergency. Then abd cherrypicks which rules to follow. leucostite agreed to stop writing dangerous pages here, then he immediately jumped to write them at Wikibooks. Blocking someone forcing them to agree to avoid admin actions against a user creating problematic pages was extortion. Also making up terms as they go, for their convenience, are inappropriate acts.

Comment by IP that Dave doesn't understand when blocks are appropriate.

[4] "12:47, 16 October 2014 Dave Braunschweig (discuss | contribs) blocked Sidelight12 (discuss | contribs) (autoblock disabled) for indefinite (Intimidation, harassment, or vulgar language: Misuse of custodian tools.)" He misused custodian tools, and put a false claim of harassment. If anything, Dave's and abd's actions are harassment. Hypocritically tells others don't push your values onto others, then he outright bullies his values onto others, then makes up excuses for it. [5] - Sidelight12 Talk 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Dave tries to close himself by archiving, especially when a comment was made less than 6 hours before. [6]. This is sneaky behavior. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please act on Dave Braunscheweig without prejudice. Seriously something has to be done about this ongoing abuse. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am always open to review of my actions as custodian. It goes with the territory. As a point of order, however, according to Wikiversity:Custodian feedback, users are to first go to the custodian's talk page, and second place comments, suggestions, complaints or questions at Wikiversity:Custodian feedback. Sidelight12 has refused all requests to engage in meaningful dialog regarding his concerns. I would welcome a neutral custodian's review of my interactions with Sidelight12 and confirmation that there is no ongoing abuse. I would further welcome a recommendation that Sidelight12 engage in the feedback processes already in place. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a false accusation that I didn't participate in dialog. This is where I post it. I've posted at feedback, and that wasn't necessarily a request for action, it was a notice. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

abd[edit]

Please take action against abd without prejudice, he promotes turmoil at Wikiversity. He is continually abusive, he twists logic and cherrypicks which rules are to be followed when it benefits him. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've posted about this in the past, and it is still relevant here. [8]

He asks to get me blocked, when I posted something that he tried to hide, that was hidden less than 6 hours later. I haven't revert warred, on Wikipedia the revert rule is 3rrr, and I had a reason to revert with the edit summary, thus avoiding a revert war. Corrupt behavior. Please, an uninvolved admin block abd without prejudice. The evidence presented to Snowolf by Abd was one sided, as he missed where Dave abused blocks and unblocked himself, above he mentioned where he missed this action. Abd painted the story to make it look like only I was responsible for the problem at meta, when, however Dave is faulty in his behavior. It was critical for Snowolf to get the blocks right, but he or she can't really be blamed as he only acted on the evidence presented when it was ongoing. I stuck by my actions because I knew that leucostite couldn't help it with dangerous behavior, and in fact he ran straight to wikibooks with that behavior after promising to stop. Dave and Abd thought they could renegotiate the block on their own terms, when I had the reason in the summary. There is no community here, there is no blocking policy, and when I asked for help on my page from abd's past abuse the people I asked for comment didn't comment. Abd also cherrypicked which rules to follow for his benefit. VASTLY corrupt behavior by abd, an uninvolved admin from abd please ban him without prejudice. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

One can see how Sidelight12 is incautious about the accusations he makes. I have not requested that he be blocked. "Revert warring," if one reads the Wikipedia policies that he refers to, begins with repeated assertion of the same content (or removal of the same content). Revert warring itself is not necessarily improper, but is discouraged. The WP:3RR rule is a "bright line." Sidelight never bothered to understand Wikiversity traditions and policies (we have defacto policies that have been through a bit of weird history), and, here, the biggest blooper, besides blatant incivility, is that Sidelight12 adminstrators have the power to ban. He saw me use "without prejudice" on meta with regard to his sysop removal,[9] so he uses it here, where it is practically meaningless and contradictory. One does not ever ban "without prejudice."
One of the surest ways to a ban, though, is continual complaint about past "wrongs." It is wiki-suicide. Sidelight12 is now on Wikiversity only for complaint and retribution, see the contributions. That never works out well. Nobody has been harassing him. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
More wiki-lawyering. "Please warn Sidelight12 about incivility and disruptive behavior. If the warning is disregarded, please block as appropriate" That is suggesting, (or a sneaky was of ordering) someone to warn me for posting about your behavior, then a suggestion to block me. Wiki-lawyering, wikilawyering. Wikiversity lacks rules, every time rules try to be made, you always have made sure no rules would stay. I was making an example of your use of the phrase 'without prejudice'. I hope someone else sees through how your last argument makes absolutely no sense, as I've pointed out why. I also figured you'd say oh Wikibooks allows it, so its fair to post that garbage there. This is absolutely stupid how you use logical loopholes through language, and keep arguing against what's obvious. I have a perfectly valid reason to post this here, and you wish for someone to warn me and have them threaten a block to silence me. In fact I've had objections to YOUR inappropriate behavior for a quite while. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Adding: if there was revert warring, you're just or more-so guilty of that. My only purpose for reverting, was for my comments to stay, not for them to be hidden. And a revert with a good explanation in the summary is allowed, if not overdone, which I haven't overdone. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

leucosticte[edit]

  • The revision of the deleted dangerous page seems to be hidden, but the discussion is apparent [10]. I've tried to block his email access.
  • Unblock request by leucosticte [11] , October 16, 2014
  • [12] Leucosticte's wikibooks edits on Suicide and bleach, October 19, 2014. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rough consensus has been to allow discussion on the matter in question. Our consensus, so far, is to not allow this content on Wikiversity without having ethical guidelines in place. The creation of the content originally violated no stated Wikiversity policy, and the user himself brought it to my attention, and I tagged it for speedy deletion as a result. Leucosticte is a cooperative user, even if he has some wild opinions.
  • The email access block attempt was due to ignorance about the block tool, was contrary to policy, and is completely irrelevant here. Sidelight12 is no longer a probationary custodian, and what Sidelight12 attempted to do is moot.
  • What the user does on Wikibooks or any other WMF wiki is irrelevant to Wikiversity participation, our precedents are clear on that However, Wikibooks has considered the issue of book content on suicide methods, several times, and consensus was to allow it. This appears to also be the Wikipedia position. Meanwhile, this section on Leucosticte does not request action, and detailing the activities of users on other WMF wikis can be considered a privacy policy violation (subject to details and necessity). Leucosticte is definitely not being disruptive here. Accordingly,
  • I request speedy close of this specific request. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Except Wikiversity and Wikibooks are how-to, while Wikipedia describes. There is no privacy violation here, that is a misleading claim, it's all Wikimedia projects. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

please add the Korean + Slovene WV also to the RC sidebar[edit]

example, thx. ----Erkan Yilmaz 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

YesY Done -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist Request[edit]

Request that this page be whitelisted to be able to add bitly links. Thanks!--Visdaviva (discusscontribs) 18:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it isn't pages that are white-listed, but destinations. If bitly is blocked, it's because it is used for advertising, and to mislead and misdirect users to locations other than what they might intend to visit. Bitly has great advantages on social media platforms, but it shouldn't be necessary here. Just put the actual link in your content rather than the bitly shortcut. And be sure to review Wikiversity: External links. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)