User talk:Rschen7754

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!

Hello and Welcome to Wikiversity Rschen7754! You can contact us with questions at the colloquium or me personally when you need help. Please remember to sign and date your finished comments when participating in discussions. The signature icon Insert-signature.png above the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy, Civility, and the Terms of Use policies while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may


You do not need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Vogone (SWMT) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Hunter Mariner XIV & User:‎Hunter Mariner XV[edit]

FYI, I've locally blocked those two accounts indefinitely. Thanks for the heads up. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Rschen7754 04:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Hi! I noticed your comment at User_talk:Jtneill#Custodians.2Fbureaucrats regarding notability. I understand that Wikipedia has a notability policy at Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Notability. However, I can find no corresponding policy at Wikiversity. Instead, there are many pages of archived Colloquium discussion reinforcing the idea that notability is not a criteria for inclusion here. If you are aware of a page that defines notability as a Wikiversity requirement, please share the link. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to our global norms against self-promotion. I am active on many different Wikimedia sites, including this one, and self-promotion is generally not allowed anywhere, including Wikiversity. --Rschen7754 17:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but again I need a reference. At Wikipedia I find Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. This policy outlines a requirement for NPOV, but does not ban self-promotion. Wikiversity does not have an NPOV restriction, and I cannot find any article at Wikiversity mentioning a ban on self promotion. Please help me understand your perspective by providing a link to current Wikiversity policy that supports this. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 02:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
So far, your arguments are consisting of "But it doesn't say that this is banned, so we can do it!" Most of the smaller Wikimedia sites don't have explicit policies against spam, but we delete spam off them anyway... --Rschen7754 02:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiversity has a proposed policy on spam. Please see Wikiversity:Spam. Wikiversity also has a policy on solicitations. Please see Wikiversity:Deletions. I have personally deleted a number of spam pages this past week that violated the ban on solicitations. I have also corrected pages this past week that were otherwise valid educational resources by removing inappropriate external links. But neither of these address the issues you have presented, which are notability and self promotion. Notability and self promotion are not spam. They are also not recognized as legitimate reasons to delete content at en:Wikiversity. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
At its core, isn't self-promotion a form of spam? --Rschen7754 03:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Self promotion can be a form of spam. I assume that's why Wikipedia blocks it. Self promotion can also be an excellent educational tool. I can't think of any way to teach writing, marketing, or speech, for examples, without it. Self promotion that does not violate the Wikiversity external links policy and does not violate the Wikiversity solicitation policy is not defined as a form of spam here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dave, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how decisions are made on Wikimedia wikis. If a community decides a page is not desirable, it does not matter if it is for a reason included in the policy, because policy documents consensus and is inherently not complete. It's for this reason that I am currently opposed to full custodianship for you.
Self-promotion, especially when only tangentially related to the wiki's purpose, is not acceptable, and this is a global norm I would've expected to have been followed here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You certainly could be right. I don't have any understanding of how decisions are made on other Wikimedia wikis. I haven't studied them and don't participate in them beyond a few votes at meta from time to time. However, I have studied the en:Wikiversity decision process as evidenced by available archives extensively, and I have worked full-time in a collaborative educational environment for more than ten years. I understand that in education, policy must come before action. Actions that precede or violate policy are bad for the institution and its participants. If the community decides that a page is undesirable, the community should correct policy, then decide whether or not existing violators are grandfathered, and then proceed with addressing the page in question. The alternative is just a high-tech lynching through mob action. Actions like that appear to have led to purges here at Wikiversity in the past, and are not sound policy. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Those pages are better off in his userspace. There is nothing on notability on Wikiversity, but it should probably only exist for people and organizations. Organizations and people can stay on userpages. Notability for subjects would cause a headache, since this wiki does not require secondary sources, and contributors are allowed to create their own learning material. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the articles are better off in user space. In fact, I was the one who suggested it, twice (Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Aaqib_A., User_talk:Dave_Braunschweig#Aaqib_A.). -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It can also be noted that much matters about how the page is written. A well-written neutral biography can be used to teach how to write biographies, for example, but I see no value in promotional pages of any kind, regardless of the page subject.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
If the page or subpages are about how to write biographies, with real examples. Or there are many biographies that are highly notable by any standard. Or if the organization/person is hosting the teaching page, but the focus is not the organization/person (like the technical writing resource or its easy english counterpart). It could be acceptable. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
My apologies to User:Rschen7754 on the hijacking of this talk page for extended discussion. My intent was only a personal conversation seeking documentation supporting his position. I recommend that any additional responses on notability be directed to Wikiversity_talk:Deletions#Notability_for_articles_solely_about_people_and_organizations and any additional resposes on my actions be directed to User_talk:Dave_Braunschweig#Aaqib_A.. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Global lock and spam deletion requests for PatriciZKDJ[edit]

I noticed that you globally locked this account and requested deletion for the two pages here, as spam. The pages do not, in themselves, appear to be spam in themselves. I'm assuming that you have identified the content as coming from a spambot, based on more than just the appearance of those two pages, because we would not block a user based only on that.

I don't see that the user had edits anywhere else than Wikiversity. SUL info. If so, I'd think a global lock was overkill and contrary to lock policy. I'd have preferred, if needed, a local block be applied, with Talk page access allowed, so, in the rare chance that this is a sincere user, we'd be able to find out. If I'm incorrect, please let me know how. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of subtle signs that indicate that this is a spambot: the generic username, the fact that there is only one account (specifically, that there is no login.wikimedia account created, indicating that something is amiss), the <br> tags that are completely unnecessary, etc. --Rschen7754 01:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
So is your concern that the user, once welcomed here -- as I was about to do when I saw that the account had been globally locked -- would then start to spam? Wouldn't a spambot be likely to go cross-wiki fairly quickly? I certainly agree that this could be a spambot, but I don't like "subtle signs" as a reason for anything more than reasonable suspicion and watchfulness. I'm pretty sure that if I'd gone to meta with a request for a lock, I'd have been told, "not cross-wiki, can be handled locally." Those pages aren't spam, and since the pages are not spambots, it's not a reason for deletion. So I'm removing the tags, and may consider where we can move that page, it's not a great idea hanging about at the top level in mainspace. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That is not true, several spambots wait for several weeks before continuing to spam. And there are plenty of stewards who would have locked the account. If you disagree, you are welcome to discuss this on Meta. --Rschen7754 01:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
What's not true? Ah, about "likely." In any case, I started to remove the deletion tags, then re-read the user page. I think you are absolutely right. So I'll re-tag the one page, and not create a user talk page. The "I'm Victoria" with a username PatriciZKDJ is, indeed, very weird. And someone who lives in Idalia wouldn't say that, like that, and if they live in Italy, they would say "Italia." So ... the game is to get an account with some kept edits, sleep a while, and then blitz the wikis?
Look, we do have users who make some very weird initial edits. We have children who come here, and their first edits often look like vandalism. Our purpose is education and sometimes that's possible. We are far less content-oriented than most WMF projects. --Abd (discusscontribs) 02:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That can be the game, or sometimes the posting of carefully crafted pages without links, within 2 minutes of account creation, is enough to perform SEO. Spambots are grounds for a lock, even if they appear to be only single-wiki; some stewards don't bother to do so, but it is perfectly allowed under policy. The negative reaction comes when someone dumps a list of 20-30 spambots that have edited only one wiki, as it is a bit of work to figure out if they really are spambots, which wikis they edited, if they didn't edit, what abusefilter was triggered, etc. This comes especially in months where we are short of stewards (that are not January through March, when all the inactive stewards come back and appear to be active so they pass reconfirmations). But if I run across one and already have CentralAuth open, I will generally lock it since I took the effort to open the window. --Rschen7754 05:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment optional[edit]

Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Abd.27s_disruptions. Thanks. - Sidelight12 Talk 01:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Global auto-block[edit]

My account was compromised. Can you enable a global indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki projects? Thanks for your collaboration. --BScMScMD (discusscontribs) 00:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a peculiar edit under this username that might corroborate the claim of compromise. Or it might have been a good faith edit--it was not an obvious case of vanalism. The edit was at Light and optics--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)