Wikiversity:Notices for custodians
This page is a central location for communication between custodians.
- Join us on irc channel #wikiversity-en or on skype to coordinate activities in real time.
- View recent changes in real time on irc channel #en.wikiversity.
- Request pages be imported.
- Please look at Special:Unwatchedpages and add some pages that are of interest to you to your watch list.
- Please review the archives for past discussions.
- See also: Wikiversity:Request custodian action
Please review the recent changes to Wikiversity:Custodian Mentorship and provide any changes or corrections that would be appropriate from your perspective. Comments welcome. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikimedians,
I just wanted to inform that I blocked global sysop the IP address 184.108.40.206 as global sysop for 1 day for ongoing vandalism/tests on a userpage. I did this, instead of a local sysop doing it, because it seemed no administrators were available at the time. If you have any problems with block, please let me know. Kind regards, Wiki13 (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for doing this. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Sidelight12 has been blocked for misuse of custodian tools used to harass User:Leucosticte and User:Abd. Sidelight12 may be unblocked at any point with agreement not to interact custodially with Leucosticte or Abd, and agreement not to use custodial tools in reprisal against me. There are other, more appropriate ways to handle his concerns. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I emailed Dave and asked him not to unblock, but I think he did this before getting that mail. I asked him to not unblock to avoid wheel-warring. However, his unblocks are fully aligned with policy, all except for wheel-warring, and Sidelight was clearly wheel-warring, a probationary custodian wheel-warring with a permanent one. We will be addressing probationary custodian policy so that this becomes a cause for immediate desysop. I cannot recall this having happened before. I was emergency desysopped for an unblock, but I had discussed the unblock with the blocking custodian, and did not wheel-war. My unblock was reversed immediately by another custodian, without discussion. Technically, that was wheel-warring. Here, Dave discussed the blocks with Sidelight, Sidelight's responses were not policy-based, and Sidelight has shown clear involvement, which would ordinary require recusal.
- In the voluntary WV:Candidates for Custodianship/Standard stop agreement that was used by me and another probationary custodian, it is provided that any permanent custodian may require a probationer to cease tool usage by notice on their talk page, and, in an emergency, may block first. The agreement then allowed the probationer to unblock self, which unblock would represent clear receipt of notice, and if the stop request were violated, this would be grounds for immediate desysop at meta. Dave is essentially following that procedure, even though Sidelight did not agree to it, because the procedure is really a formalization of what the community will expect if it considers the matter. Probationary custodians do not wheel-war with permanent custodians, period.
- If Sidelight unblocks himself, this would ordinarily be considered use of tools while involved, and historically this has eventually resulted in desysop. Dave has provided a legitimate way for Sidelight to unblock himself, by making it an acknowledgement of a specific restriction.
- The situation is not symmetrical. Dave, as a permanent custodian, is highly and routinely involved in site maintenance, and reliably and predictably so, rigorously following policy and not merely his own opinions. Sidelight is erratic, is not crucial for any Wikiversity maintenance, and never understood the role of custodian. Dave has properly notified the custodial community here of his action, which could be considered an emergency action, and there has been some draft custodian policy, providing that wherever there could be recusal failure, a custodian may act anyway to protect the wiki and the community, but with immediate consultation here or on WV:RCA. Sidelight, blocking users with whom he was in long-term conflict, did not do this at all, and also showed that he does not understand how the tools work, and he's refused to learn. His block of Leucosticte did not merely block email so that the user would be forced to do everything on-wiki, it blocked him so that he could not edit at all.
- While I preferred that wheel-warring be avoided and that the matter be resolved by an independent custodian or bureaucrat, Dave's action is fully legitimate. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sidelight12 has unblocked himself, blocked me, and reblocked Leucosticte and Abd. His reasons for blocking violate Wikiversity:Blocking policy. He refuses to communicate regarding these issues, and will not allow anyone involved to comment on his talk page. I've unblocked myself, Leucosticte and Abd per Blocking policy, but we seem to be running out of options here that don't involve stewards. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have requested emergency desysop at . A confirmation there from Dave will be proper, though they have been pointed to this page, confirmation from independent sysops, or a bureaucrat will be very helpful. If Jtneill requests, as mentor and 'crat, they will definitely grant desysop, otherwise stewards may want to wait for local discussion process, which, of course, cannot happen if Sidelight is blocking everyone involved but himself. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Good evening. I have proceeded with an emergency desysop of @Sidelight12: in light of their self-unblock, a clear misuse of administrative rights and a big no-no anywhere on Wikimedia. I had been loosely monitoring the situations here, and was hoping that this would not be necessary. I would have preferred if the request would have come from somebody uninvolved with this matter, as @Abd: themselves acknowledged, but I think the matter is pretty straightforward and clear. I would suggest that @Dave Braunschweig: refrain from blocking the user again, as I don't think it would help anything and just further inflame the situation (with the temporary loss of administrative privileges the original block reason is moot). I will leave a message on the talk page of the only 'crat active in the past two weeks, @Jtneill: and ask him to take over the matter from this point on, restoring the administrative priviledges according to local procedures and practices when deemed right to do so. I hope all the parties can find some way to settle this matter amicably, as wheel warring reflects badly on all the parties involved. Maybe an uninvolved administrator can take a look at the original blocks and make a decision about whether they need to be reinstated or not, and Dave and Sidelight can disengage from the matter? I see that Leighblackall, Leutha and Jtneill were all active lately so maybe they look into this? Kind regards, Snowolf How can I help? 17:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would also have preferred the request be by someone neutral, or, even better, by the mentor, a bureaucrat. However, even though involved, I can still make a request. Had that request been disruptive, I'd have been dead meat.
- We have only one reliably active permanent custodian, Dave. We will be creating more, and we will need at least one more 'crat, also.
- Dave also unblocked himself. The problem is not exactly that Sidelight unblocked himself, it is that he unblocked himself and completely disregarded the reason for the block, and continued to act where there was no emergency at all, only his negative opinion of users, and completely failed to consult the community while taking drastic actions.
- It is also that Sidelight was probationary, which happens here with no vote, only the agreement of a mentor, and Dave is permanent, ratified by the community. It is also that Dave was clearly following policy and Sidelight was massively violating it. It is that Dave, where his action might be questioned, routinely reported it to the community and consulted. Sidelight never did that.
- We will be improving policy clarity on this. I have never before seen a probationary custodian blatantly wheel-war with a permanent custodian. (I never did anything even approaching this when I was a probationary custodian.) It's wiki-suicide. We have had all kinds of problems, but not this one.
- Thanks for your very prompt action. I expected it might take more time, a request for confirmation, etc. But your action was spot on. I was not planning on filing on meta, until the wheel-warring broke out today, I assumed that if Sidelight was to be desysopped, it would be through mentor action or normal discussion process, but that process could not take place if he was blocking everyone involved! That had to stop. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I apologize to the community for unblocking myself, but at the time it seemed the only appropriate solution to reduce impact to the then-reblocked Leucosticte and Abd, and posted notice of my actions here in case there were any questions. I thank Snowolf for his quick response. I see no need to re-block Sidelight12. He is an excellent editor of Wikiversity content. The only issues have been related to his custodial approach and use of tools in violation of policy, violation of proposed policy, and refusal to engage in meaningful dialog with anyone involved. I sincerely hope that he will now engage in that meaningful dialog. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I do not agree to daves made up rules, then he keeps refering to a proposal as policy. The block was inappropriate to start with, and if I'm going to be desysoped over this, then dave needs to be desysoped too. The only way I broke a rule was by not blocking first. And to do the firsr block was inappropriate. You wanted to slant the case at meta wiki, before the whole case could be made. I made my reason in my edit. It was a gross misuse of tools by dave. - sidelight12
- To be clear, Dave did not edit the meta wiki on this, as Sidelight implies. Sidelight made the same mistake there. I filed the request on meta. I did not consult with Dave first, this was my action. This was the filing and complete discussion. It was not slanted, it described what was happening. Yes, there were a couple of words of conclusion. One does not file a request there without proposing action. It was acknowledged by me and recognized on meta that the filing was irregular (normally this will be done by a 'crat.)
- I pointed to Wikiversity evidence, the steward took one look and acted. His immediate response was not based on a full understanding of the situation. That's common for stewards. They are not perfect. Had he erred, it could easily have been fixed by Sidelight's mentor. That is the argument I've seen over and over when desysopped users go to meta to complain. Very quickly, here, when the desysop was done, the mentor looked at the situation and confirmed that the probationary custodianship had ended. By Wikiversity policy, and long custom, Sidelight may again apply for probationary custodianship and if a permanent custodian agrees, the rights can be reinstated. At this point, though, I'd recommend against it. Waste of time. A few years of experience, learning to use the tools (such as knowing how the block tool works), how to work with community consensus, instead of acting based on "I'm right, they are wrong," maybe. Good luck, Sidelight. Wikiversity is for "learning by doing," and I hope you have learned something. I've been emergency desysopped twice, and removed by Community Review once, and I learned from it. You can, too. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all for your considerations and actions here. As I understand it, Sidelight12's admin user rights on English Wikiversity were removed by Snowolf (meta steward) as a temporary 'emergency' action to prevent further wheel-warring use of blocking/unblocking and to allow local discussion and consensus. As Sidelight12's probationary custodianship mentor and a bureaucrat here, I am concerned that Sidelight12's use of the block/unblock tool, in particular, has been controversial and hasn't involved more consultation with others (e.g., community, mentor), particularly given that this has been during a period of probationary custodianship. At this stage, I'm not inclined to reinstate Sidelight12's access to admin user rights unless there was a community consensus to do so. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- dave abused his tools when he blocked me. I explained what was necessary in block summary. Leucostite was a threat to the community, because of his tendency and eagerness to write dangerous material. Abd is not allowed on my page and he needed to stay blocked for. 2 weeks. I do not agree with their made up rules, so I did not post here when it was just abd and dave. The meta community needed to intervene bc its just abd and dave saying they are the community. No they do did not act in the interest of the community, this is in the interest of abd and leucostite. Dave also unblocked himself. He undid the blocks who broke the rules and needed to be blocked. I unblocked myself to block them If you see the past conflicts, I saw no use in posting here, bc its nothing but reinforcement, by abd and he has a history of making up rules as he goes. I've also seeked metawiki in the past, but no intervention then. I asked JTneil for a review of the blocks before this got this far, and I asked for his feedback recently. This whole thing needs to be looked at, not just my actions. I want a review of this whole mess, from abds behavior, to leucostites' s editing tendencies, to dave's block nature. I can take responsibility for my actions, but they also need negative consequences for theirs.I ask that Snowolf comment. - sidelight12
- Please Close this discussion. This is a Notices for custodians page. It is not a page to argue that a custodian action was wrong. That would be WV:Custodian feedback. This is not a page to argue for a user to be banned or a custodian desysopped, that would be WV:Community Review. This is not a page to request a custodian block a user, that would be WV:Request custodian action. If wider community attention is needed on an issue, there is WV:Colloquium (which can point to those pages).
- Dave posted here because he acted where he might be considered involved, and that requires, where possible, that the community be notified. I'd have suggested WV:RCA instead, requesting immediate review. But this was adequate. All custodians should be watchlisting both pages, and preferably receive email notifications. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Dave acted improperly. His unblocking and blocking, was improper to start this. This needs to be said here so the people who commented can see this. The only emergency here was that you got blocked, and action was only taken hearing your side of the story. Your abuse needs to end, and dave enables it. snowolf, can you please comment, and close if you wish; thanks.- sidelight12
- To be clear, that I was blocked was not an emergency and was not treated as such, neither by me nor by Dave. The emergency was that Sidelight took up wheel-warring with a permanent custodian on the personal belief that the permanent custodian was wrong, but did not follow procedure for handling disagreement. That's "rogue sysop." Dave had warned Sidelight, if unblocked, not to block again, given the obvious involvement, and not to retaliate. Sidelight unblocked himself and then blocked me and the other user, again, and retaliated by blocking Dave. This was completely beyond the pale.
- Does Sidelight have any friends he trusts to advise him? I suggest he ask them! I ask the same of my friends, and I listen. Meanwhile, I could write much more, but debate here is inappropriate, as mentioned above. I have pointed to where Sidelight may take up issues and make requests. That is not a recommendation, it would be a Bad Idea at this point, but he's free to do it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- unblocking you was rogue, blocking a custodian first was rogue too, so was his unblocking himself. The reason was in the block history. I don't agree to daves unblocking reasoning, when you were blocked you were to stay blocked. He doesnt set terms as whats convenient for you two. You posted on my page, the consequence is for you to be blocked for two weeks, not you and him renegotiating it.you and dave are rogue. - sidelight12
- For the record, the unblocks of Leucosticte and Abd were consistent with Wikiversity:Blocking policy item 3, 'A custodian capable of impartial treatment is recommended when possible. Other custodians should ask for a second opinion.' The second opinion was requested and received prior to the unblocks. The opinion was offered off-wiki, so I will not provide details here, but it was impartial, legitimate, and confirmed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's not a policy, its a proposal. How many times do you need to be told that? I don't even think they had the whole story at the time, just your side of the argument. -sidelight12