Wikiversity:Request custodian action

From Wikiversity
(Redirected from Request custodian action)
Jump to: navigation, 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
Edit protected 1

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)

[1], 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.

[2] "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. [3] - 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. [4]. 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)

Update: There were requests for warning of Sidelight12 by Abd, and requests for action against Abd and Leucosticte by Sidelight12. All three were closed and archived after several weeks without response. The closing of all three should be considered in any review of my actions as custodian, and I will leave this request here for someone else to review and close whenever they deem it appropriate. The other requests should remain closed until this one is addressed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not close discussions in which you are involved, this is at least the 3rd time you've done that. This all stays here until someone uninvolved and impartial looks at it. There not being enough custodians around, is not an excuse to close this. - Sidelight12 Talk 10:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Your request that my activities be reviewed stays open until someone else closes it. But by definition, that review will include my closing of the other three. Your requests for action against Abd and Leucosticte are closed and archived, as is Abd's request for a warning against you. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:35, 5 December 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)
Generally, if a link is useful and is properly presented, it will be allowed here, so if it cannot be used due to the global blacklist, request whitelisting on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Be patient, and if you need assistance, ask me, I have experience with this. Meanwhile, you can bypass the blacklist by removing the http:// from the URL, or by using a pair of nowiki tags on the full url. The blacklist only prevents actual linking. --Abd (discusscontribs) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Banned Wikipedia user wrecking wikiversity[edit]

The user Ben Steigmann (Blastikus) is a perm banned Wikipedia editor. Please see Ben Steigmann Sockpuppet investigation also this recently Proposed site ban for Blastikus by Wikipedia user Manul and other editors.

Steigmann has been using wikiversity as a parapsychology soap-box to promote his conspiracy theory, fringe and pseudoscience beliefs and attack Wikipedia which he finds too skeptical. [6], [7] etc, he has also created other articles on here. This fringe pushing and pseudoscience is not appropriate for Wikiversity. Note that off-site he is linking to these articles he has created to others in support of himself apparently refuting skeptical Wikipedia articles. This is giving the website a bad name and reduces any level of academia. Jameskeptic (discusscontribs) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concern. Wikipedia and Wikiversity have different missions. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia can argue for truth or accuracy in content. Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning materials and activities. Learning about controversial issues often requires the opportunity to evaluate all perspectives, so that individuals can form their own opinions. Current Wikiversity community consensus is to accept fringe and pseudoscience contributions and essays, as long as they are subpages of a larger learning project rather than main pages, and as long as the author respects the rights of other users to create pages of opposing viewpoints. If there is information on the Parapsychology main page that you believe is not correct or not NPOV, please begin a discussion there so that a more neutral perspective can be presented. If you disagree with content on subpages of that resource, you are welcome to either work with the author to correct the subpages, or create other subpages that support your opposing viewpoint. A See Also or brief sentence noting the controversy should then be added to both pages directing readers to the alternative viewpoints. There is also a {{Fringe}} template that could be added to fringe subjects. Please help others learn more about parapsychology conspiracy theories and fringe and pseudoscience by developing supporting content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dave but I do not think you have looked at the evidence or the seriousness of the problem as Ben Steigmann on Wikiversity is a perm banned Wikipedia user Ben Steigmann on Wikipedia. So why he is he on Wikiversity? Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project. He has a history of ruining Wikipedia articles with fringe claims and attacking editors and trolling talk-pages going back years Ben Steigmann's sockpuppets

Steigmann is writing anti-Wikipedia things here on Wikiversity pages [8], he was originally naming skeptical Wikipedia editors and spouting attacks but he removed some of those. Check his talk-page where some remain. According to his Wikiversity page which he updated "Wikipedia currently represents an accumulation of these distortions, and hence I will attack its articles, though I won't single out any editor in doing so, as such action does not address the root of the problem." Do you think is ok that he is using Wikiversity to attack Wikipedia?

Did you look at the site ban? Wikipedis site ban for Blastikus/Ben Steigmann he has been blocked for "using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories,[5] eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment". [9].

If you look at his edit history on Wikiversity [10], there are IPs there that have also been banned from Wikipedia on his sock puppet investigation.

More importantly Ben Steigmann last week attempted to copy and paste or spam is the correct term a load of his fringe theories and pseudoscience that he put on Wikiversity straight onto a Wikipedia article for Gustav Geley [11] (he used the same IP he has used on Wikiversity) and using his account Ben Steigmann and other socks before being blocked [12]. Do you think it is acceptable he continues on Wikiversity after such behavior?

The Gustav Geley article is now perm blocked because of his trolling, this user is disruptive. As said this user is using Wikiversity to promote conspiracy theories about skeptics, promote pseudoscience and attacks skeptics or Wikipedia.

Note his most recent edit on Wikiversity [13] "We now have long experience with wikipedia's cadre of dedicated skeptical editors. It is not possible in general to introduce corrections because they will be reverted by individuals who have a clear agenda to trash any articles related to parapsychology, anomalies research, etc., as well as articles about individual researchers." No evidence give of course that skeptics are trying to trash articles related to parapsychology, just libel. But this is the sort of nonsense he is writing on Wikiversity. It is anti-Wikipedia.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with Wikiversity. It is giving this place a bad name. It is obvious this user is here for disruption. Can you please get some admins to look into this. Thank you. Jameskeptic (discusscontribs) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Jameskeptic is an SPA with no edits here other than to complain about Steigmann, here and on User talk:Jtneill. Jameskeptic has no other activity globally, so this account was created only to report here.
Ben Steigmann is indeed Blastikus and the IPs described in the SSP report, I know from off-wiki discussion (wherein Steigmann was discouraged by others from continuing to sock on Wikipedia). This is not a major sock puppeteer, as these things go, he readily admitted who he was, etc.
Contrary to what Jameskeptic asserts, Blastikus is not site-banned, merely blocked, so those edits were only block evasion. Steigmann had one edit on Wikipedia, possibly in error, it's easy to do with autologin.
The "Proposed site ban for Blastikus" was closed without action.
Steigmann has been outraged by the behavior of certain skeptical groups, which are organized to keep fringe points of view off of Wikipedia, as well as, too often, to push biographies of parapsychologists toward defamation. Steigmann does not know how to address this on Wikipedia, through process, and even people who know the relatively arcane procedures often run into severe difficulties. There is a problem on Wikipedia with factions, both unorganized and organized, and, in this case, because the above report shows unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, but rather could be a reflection of off-wiki discussion among organized skeptics, such as the Guerilla Skeptics, see [14], we may be seeing meat puppetry here. (Minor factions far less obviously organized have been banned from Wikipedia for "off-wiki coordination.")
One of the characteristics of Wikipedia factions is intensive activity to block and ban editors with dissenting points of view. Someone like Steigmann, naive about Wikipedia process, is a sitting duck for them. He will simply open his mouth and say things that can get him blocked. He will expect that a good encyclopedia will want "the truth." He will not know how to handle tag-team revert warring, common when a faction is involved. He may not be experienced at negotiating consensus on NPOV text, etc., he will not know the precedents on "undue weight" and how that will be interpreted if push comes to shove, etc.
However, we do not need to assess his Wikipedia behavior at all. Precedent is very strong on Wikiversity that users are not to be sanctioned here based on behavior elsewhere. Again, Jameskeptic has no clue about our policies and traditions and is here only to attack this user. I will warn him.
Steigmann came here through my invitation to a group of parapsychologists -- scientists -- to participate in creating resources here on the topic, which is a recognized science. (As far as I know, he is not a scientist, as such, just an interested writer. User:DeanRadin is a scientist, see w:Dean Radin). When Steigmann strayed from neutrality in a top-level or higher-level resource, I suggested that he work at the essay level, where he could express pretty much whatever he likes, and later, neutral resources can be collaboratively built at a higher level. Skeptics are welcome to do the same thing, and, then, to participate in the creation of deep and neutral educational resources.
The claim that Steigmann has a history of "ruining Wikipedia articles" is preposterous, as is the claim that he is "wrecking Wikiversity." One page? And if so, fix it! But Jameskeptic is not admitting to being a Wikipedia editor and is certainly not a Wikiversitan. Again, if Steigmann is acting improperly here, a collaborative user would first attempt to address the editing itself, not run to custodians for action. The page cited as a complaint about Wikipedia is an essay page. Believe it or not, we can complain about Wikipedia on Wikiversity! Wikipedians certainly seem to feel free to complain about Wikiversity! I've never seen anyone sanctioned there for it, nor on meta.
It's certainly possible that someone goes too far. We will not allow Wikiversity to be used as a haven from which to attack individual Wikipedia editors. We sometimes allow "wikistudies," and the general opinion is that this can be done, if ethical guidelines are followed. We don't necessarily have the guidelines, but our basic principle is avoiding disruption. If someone is personally attacked, that's disruptive. I don't see that Steigmann has done this. But this report, here, is a personal attack on Steigmann, hence, indeed, I do suggest custodial attention, so that a Wikiversity user is not driven away.
Steigmann has been contributing a great deal of content. He is not a disruptive user here. Please support him. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jameskeptic: A user being blocked or banned on Wikipedia isn't relevant to a request for custodian action here. They are separate projects with different missions and different policies. If you have specific examples of users being attacked on Wikiversity, please provide links and quotes so your concerns may be reviewed and addressed. Regarding concerns about content, the page in question indicates that it is a personal research project and specifically invites users who dispute the content to create a separate rebuttal page or engage the author in discussion on his talk page. There is no record of you having done either of these before requesting custodian action. In fact, there is no record of you having done anything at all, anywhere. If you're serious about your concern for the Parapsychology project, join our community and improve it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 00:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. One more place where criticism of an essay page can properly be placed, an important one, and Ben missed it: the attached talk page. We give users quasi-administrative status in their user space, as long as they do not abuse this (and fringe opinion is not abuse). In mainspace, we allow authors the right of authorship of an attributed subpage (like Ben's essay linked from Parapsychology/Sources). So a critic has many legitimate options. Perhaps some good will come out of this, perhaps some skeptics on the topic -- besides myself, I am quite skeptical about many parapsychological claims -- will show up and contribute criticism and content. That would be good news, even if it might take occasional adult supervision to keep the kids from fighting.
What I've written here is what we are actually doing, in a few cases. At some point this should be codified as guideline or policy. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)