User talk:Sidelight12

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Re: Atlantis Location Hypothesis

Hi. I am John Garner (no relation to the U.S. vice-president under FDR from Texas of the same name).

I started going by RAYLEIGH22 originally because I did not plan on doing what I have done with the Atlantis site. I use a computer to update at work (a hospital), at home (on my laptop) and at my son's house from time to time. That's why I have 3 IP addresses that probably look very similar.

I am the originator of this mess that I named above (Atlantis Location Hypothesis) and it got me moved from Wikipedia to here. I welcome you as a co-author.

I am about to embark on a re-design as suggested by marshallsumter in the hopes that I can improve it with organization. If you want to help, step in and do so. If not, let me know what I am doing wrong, please because computers have become pretty complicated. My mind does not stay grounded very well so I am not organized, but I love to brainstorm and let things go where they will.

You are Sidelight12, so I will call you by that. I will nose around here from time to time. I will check the talk page on Atlantis Location Hypothesis when I get there. If you'd like we can exchange e-mail addresses but we do not have to.

RAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 11:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions[edit source]

Remember that page names can have either Title Case or Sentence case at Wikiversity. See Wikiversity:Naming_conventions#Casing. When I'm moving content, I try to base my approach on what the original author intended. If they used lower case titles, I do, too. But if they used Title Case, I respect their intent. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I didn't think it mattered, because I didn't undo or change the content of their good faith contributions. - Sidelight12 Talk 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why it matters. Users who prefer title case will continue to contribute in title case. Take a look at Creating Dynamic Lessons/Intro practice and Creating dynamic lessons/Intro practice. The content was renamed and the user wasn't informed. So, the user created new content, found it didn't match the current project, duplicated the content, and is now maintaining both versions.
I'll check with the user and see what they really want for this project. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is more as to why it matters. Every change has a cost. In this case, the change required a large number of additional changes. The page moves did not leave a redirect. A user may have off-wiki links to a page. The user may become confused (that's Dave's point). Recent Changes shows a very large number of edits. That takes up the time of those who watch Recent Changes.
Wikiversity faced the issue of Title/Sentence case long ago and decided to allow editors to choose. You just imposed your own choice on that editor. Undoing it would be a lot of work. You originally did good work, organizing the pages as subpages. You made a choice not to leave redirects. In a way, that's more flexible (the user could move the pages back, because of this). But then you changed the case and had to redo some of what you first did. better would have been to simply leave the case alone. If it "didn't matter," why did you do it?
To be clear, do not change it back without discussion. The user may decide to accept sentence case. If not, then you can undo what you did. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going for consistency. The new user is capable of figuring it out. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is asking for some help. How is it possible to rename a subpage? What we'd like to do, for example, is rename the [Cultural Encounters] subpage that is currently Dating & romantic relationships just Relationships. --MonikaKavalir (discusscontribs) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, rename is the same as move. You've been here long enough, so you can do it. I'll let you do it, or if not I can fix it. You can also give the link a different name than the page, by [[page name|link name]]. So [[Relationships|Dating & romantic relationships]], would take you to the Relationships page, and it would say "Dating & romantic relationships". Subpages are done with / , if you wanted to keep your project in one place, as easy to navigate you could move the page to Cultural Encounters/Relationships , Cultural Encounters/Leisure or however you want to name subpages. - Sidelight12 Talk 05:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of files under discussion at WV:RFD[edit source]

Please don't do that without discussion. The dog is cute and will be used. File:100 9317sml.jpg. Please undelete. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as I request on RFD, all the files should be undeleted for now. That RFD should probably not have been filed, but it was filed, and once filed, and unless deletion of everything is totally obvious or some kind of emergency, they should be left reviewable. In particular, it could conceivably have been useful to undelete all the contributions of this user, including any resource pages created. However, I'm not requesting that because the likelihood of generating value is low. This is a procedural note. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for restoring that one file. While I agree with the deletion of the other files, the problem is that others seeing the RFD can't really comment intelligently if they can't see the file. --Abd (discusscontribs) 01:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of User:Leucosticte[edit source]

That was uncalled for, beyond your reasonable discretion, effectively banning a user by shutting off talk page access and email. The situation was already being handled by a custodian, and Leucosticte was being closely watched by me. Further, you used Revision deletion on the proposed policy page without any necessity, and with no actual effect, all that it suppressed was edit summaries. Problematic content, due to the user not realizing that he should not name users, had already been revision deleted. Please undo your actions. Be careful, you should not restore the revisions hidden by Dave. Thanks. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for nobody to respond to me. No, it was called for. I did not change previous hidden revisions. What I did was right, and I expected to receive a message like this. Don't talk about this on my talkpage or refer to me about that user or his actions. - Sidelight12 Talk 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
abd don't ever edit my talkpage again. You are wrong. Don't tell me what to do, you are not a custodian, and you have no oversight over custodians. The user in question contributed nothing to learning, and only talks about one subject. - Sidelight12 Talk 14:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't have it both ways. You either want to be a custodian and will accept public review and comments on your actions or you don't want to be a custodian. There's no such thing as taking custodial action and then saying 'Nobody respond to me or mention me.' That's not acting in the best interest of the community. That's stating outright that you believe your private agenda overrules all others. A custodian doesn't have that option.
The situation was already being handled, and the block was unnecessary. More importantly, the block you instituted gives the user no appropriate way to respond. You've forced him to create multiple user accounts and be disruptive, because he has no other way to address his concerns. You should change the block to allow him to edit his talk page, unless and until such time as he shows disruptive edits there.
You've also proven the very point he was trying to make. In academic work, there is no such thing as a taboo subject. There is taboo content. We're not going to teach pedophiles how to lure children. But the subject of pedophilia is completely legitimate and worthy of appropriate academic discussion. The user had not crossed that line, and those involved were doing their best to help him see where the line was and to not cross it.
As a custodian, you need to protect and care for the community. You don't have the right to impose your own morality on the community. If you don't see the difference, this might not be a good fit for you.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't lecture me. You could have changed his talkpage block. His email and other statuses will remain blocked. I didn't want to be associated with the user's rants, but a block had to be taken. So its okay for others to say 'don't post on my page,' or whatever, but I can't say that? I intend to delete this whole thread on my page, and I don't want to hear any grief about that. If that user is a pedo, I won't make a judgement, so long as he doesn't intend whatever [which is what his incessant nonstop, one-track ranting looks like, and it is pathetic]. He is playing rhetoric and begging the question, with no intent of producing educational content. Almost every single one of his edits [even crosswiki] are about pedo-ism, even if he is or isn't one. The user is incapable of producing an appropriate project on that subject. At most he can be little more than a case study. For the accusation that I'm pushing my values on others. Don't you realize you are doing that? Do you realize that Leucosticte is dangerously trying to soapbox his own values onto others, even minors? I hope that user gets help. Your opinion is not the authoritative opinion. And for you to suggest that I shouldn't be an admin, then maybe its you who shouldn't be an admin. The blame for none of this disaster is mine. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting hairs, I meant inappropriate content, and that was obvious. - Sidelight12 Talk 09:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, you haven't reviewed Wikiversity:Blocking policy. I couldn't change his block until you declined to do so, in response to requests by both Abd and Goldenburg111. Because the user was not warned prior to the block, and because there is no community consensus support at this time for a block, I have no choice but to remove it.
  • Yes, your understanding of 'Don't post on my page' is correct. Other users can say that. As a custodian, you cannot, particularly when the posts are in response to your actions as a custodian. If you are unwilling to accept criticism for your actions, don't be a custodian.
  • If you are suggesting that I am pushing my values of following accepted guidelines and seeking community consensus, you're absolutely right. Beyond that, you have no idea what my values are in this case, because my values aren't relevant to the discussion. Whether or not I agree or completely disagree with the user's perspective, as a custodian I have no choice but to defend his right to express it, until such time as the community agrees that his behavior has a 'net negative effect' on Wikiversity.
  • Feel free to warn the user if you wish, but be sure to identify what policies or proposed policies you believe have been violated.
  • Feel free to call for a community review if you wish, but be sure to first recognize that by doing so, you are providing the very soapbox opportunity he is seeking.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up for the record: While not stating so above, Sidelight12 did modify the block to allow the user to edit his talk page. For this reason, I will not intervene. It will be up to the user to request an unblock, and the responsibility of Sidelight12 as blocking custodian to watch the user's talk page in case such a request is posted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot wrong in the stuff you said. First of all, that "policy" is a proposal. Second off, you are playing games. Adb won't post on my page, and I will remain a custodian. Trying to claim the community or rules are behind you to justify your act is nonsense. You are allowed to dish out "criticism," but you can't receive it? Well, that's your problem, not mine. When I say something, do I wikihound you over every act, or talk to people I'm trying to be friendly with like that? You really couldn't tell where his conversation was heading, and how fast, whatever. - Sidelight12 Talk 00:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get on the wrong foot with Dave. Abd may comment under this thread, and I will decide later if Abd is welcome on my page outside of this header. Leucosticte will only be unblocked from his page, and may use his own page for projects, so long as he is overseen properly by another custodian. It is even a risk to allow that, but a smaller one. I blocked him from his page, because I believed nothing good could come out of that discussion. It looked like he was just using rhetoric, excuses, reinforcement or justification. It is an unnecessary and abundant risk to allow him email, or to edit in mainspace, or anywhere else (that will remain indefinitely blocked). The action of unblocking his talkpage, itself is fine, but to do it for him to talk about where I saw that conversation seems wrong. I noticed that conversation for over a month, and it was looking like he was getting out of hand. He may talk on it, to clear his actions if he wishes, he may say custodian or whatever, but don't use my name there. I will leave it to others to say if he may do that project on his page or not. Once no one is overseeing his talkpages, they may be deleted [not an implication by me, because I'm not involved], because I'm not looking over it. My edits on his page will be deleted.
The reason I didn't want to be responded to, was because I don't want to be associated with it. Not because I was trying to have the authority to have the final say not be questioned. This thread, on my talkpage, will be erased, so both problems are solved. And if the outside community does respond, they are more likely to agree with my actions, than the opposing backlash here. I didn't do anything wrong, so as people want me to believe. Asking another wikiproject for advice or to oversee it, is not soapboxing for leucosticte, so that claim doesn't make sense. Again, I wasn't making a judgement, so long as that user doesn't think to get others involved (or whatever), or go where that conversation looked like where it was headed. I don't know if he does or doesn't have tendencies, but he acts like he does. The user honestly needs professional help, from seeing how his discussion was going. - Sidelight12 Talk 10:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honest and heart-felt explanation. Our proposed blocking policy does not allow us to block users based on what they may do, only on what they have already done. What the user has done is inappropriate disclosure of personal information without consent. He has been warned for that. The rest of his posts relate to a discussion of (or perhaps against) proposed Wikiversity policy, not an advocation of pedophelia itself. Where he goes with that discussion must be monitored closely, but we can't block him in advance, because he may not go there.
I appreciate that you want absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Unfortunately, by blocking the user, you took over responsibility for it. The only way to walk away from it is to unblock the user and trust the rest of us to monitor him, which we will. In the future, if there are issues you don't want be involved with, feel free to contact me or another custodian directly to alert us to the situation. You are welcome to send email if you prefer.
I am somewhat concerned by your revision deletions of your own edits. A positive view would be that you are just trying to remove yourself from the situation. A negative view would be that you are trying to hide evidence of your activities. This creates a conflict of interest. If your involvement truly was an accident, it would be best to have another custodian delete the revisions rather than deleting them yourself. Others might argue that the history itself is relevant and should not be deleted.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidelight, please calm down, I may be a child, but I have much more cross wiki experience that you do, so please take me seriously.
You should calm yourself down and explain your reason for the block to Abd. A sysop should never respond with words like "your wrong, my action is right, so fuck off!". You did not say "fuck off", but if you look at it in an angle, you are actually interpreting that. Sidelight, it is also inappropriate to block email and talk page access if there was no abuse. So change the block setting.
Also, is there any evidence that this user has been using inappropriate language? --~~Goldenburg111 19:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! I would say, this is an adult conversation, but ... on the internet, nobody knows that you are a dog. No, Goldenburg, Leucosticte has not used "inappropriate language," and you could have written a euphemism like "buzz off!" instead of using the vulgar expression. Do remember this for the future. --Abd (discusscontribs) 13:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[removed] [1]

No, I see I made a mistake by allowing you back on my talkpage. You are controlling. Custodians are not your puppets. That is not a set in stone policy, it is a suggestion, and I was correct, That user was inappropriate. I have the right to have this thread deleted from my page, and it will either be my me, or by a custodian who is not Dave. I allowed you on here for dispute resolution, and to say what you will about what you talked about on your email. I will not resign. You trying to "convince" me to resign, which to me shows you have no merit. Adb is not allowed on my page again. And Abd's emails show he is wrong. - Sidelight12 Talk 15:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis is that Abd's emails show he has a weak case. 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want my opinion, I think you did the right thing. However, I am relying on private information that cannot be disclosed onwiki. Unfortunately, this falls in the <1% of blocks that really should not be discussed onwiki (and there is more to it than I have seen that has been discussed already). --Rschen7754 17:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that means a lot. I don't know if I 100% did the right thing, but I didn't do the wrong thing. At the very least, I shouldn't be punished for my actions about this. I was going to keep quiet about receiving emails, until what happened soon after. Also, I don't expect anyone to make judgements on my received emails, since it would be bad to disclose details. The first email was stupid, the second I saw nothing obviously wrong with it. My interpretation of it was resolution. What I saw of it that I said was wrong was my understanding of it being a weak case. If I can help it, I will make no more mention of emails unless absolutely necessary. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As what rschen7754 said, I think it is best for this to go on email rather than onwiki. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 00:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email[edit source]

Sidelight12, just a notice, but I have emailed you about this situation, please respond on the email I sent you. Thanks! --~~Goldenburg111 00:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will limit my outgoing emails. Please take a step back from this discussion Goldenburg. It is inappropriate for someone of your age. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Blocking policy[edit source]

Please refrain from editing the Wikiversity:Blocking policy until the current issue is resolved. Ideas should be added to Wikiversity_talk:Blocking policy instead. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion[edit source]

Sorry to barge in, but you're not using the tool effectively here (in fact you're removing attribution without removing the content, which isn't CC-BY-SA friendly ;) ). You should discuss it with your mentor. --SB_Johnny talk 09:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I think I figured it out. I'll keep that in mind to ask my mentor. Thank you. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Dr. Garner here.. aka-

I am getting ready to put in the part you have listed about-- 1. A mountain range sinking into the Yellowstone supervolcano caldera and an analogy to the Azores plateau sinking into the Atlantic ocean. This would entail a corcular eruption of a series of volcanoes around the plateau or the mid atlantic rift that extruded enough magma material underwater via the ocean floor to cause the Azorean plateau to sink. This would be the huge lithospere that Plato described as the "..continent of Atlantis.."

2. Using Plato's description of the Atlantic Ocean outside of the Pillars of Hercules being unnavigatible I will present floating pumice as a result and an evaporation of ocean water causing a considerable deluge moving through Europe toward Russia, also the deluge would be world-wide ushering in the end of the rmost recent ice age. The mass exinctions, significant climate change being a result. Also, the significant escape of CO2 from the eruption into ocean causes a global warming of the Earth that accelerates the end of the ice age, contributing to the massive species die off of the people as well as animal species. Remember, the so-called "Nuclear Winter" effect does not happen because the Plinean eruption on the Atlantic floor does not result in anything but steam and clouds, a further cause of Global warming, but there is no dust in the atmosphere due to the pumice being deposited as floating rocks into the Atlantic thus making large portions of the Atlantic un-navigatable for (centuries?).

Anyway, look over this and let me know if you have any suggestions or objections. I am sure that I can find references to support all of these conjectures, eventually, because the theory is well-grounded in science.

I hope you find this soon because this is something I will do pretty shortly.


JohnRAYLEIGH22 (discusscontribs) 16:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Custodianship[edit source]

Thank you for your kind words on my nomination to be a probationary custodian. I have also looked through your many contributions and the many Wikiversity users you have helped. Although disagreements have arisen and are natural, I still support you in your becoming a permanent custodian. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wanted to leave that message regardless. You are a major part of Wikiversity, and you deserve a chance. I know we disagreed before, but its no big deal, we could have handled differences of opinion better; and we probably agreed more on subjects than we disagreed. - Sidelight12 Talk 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity Journal[edit source]

Hi, since you took notice of the development of the Wikiversity:Peer review, I also want to let you know that I've chosen today to be the official start of the Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. You are welcome to participate in the opening ceremony, which consists of making a visit to its talk page and leaving a Waffles with Strawberries.jpg or other sign of luck. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 14:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good. I never could have imagined peer review to work out well like it did. - Sidelight12 Talk 14:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marshallsumter, on another subject, I follow Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and I'm wondering if this can be formed into covering general purpose all science I suggested to Mikael Häggström‎ for an all purpose journal to go to meta:Proposals_for_new_projects. Since, you are interested in Astronomy, what do you think about a science journal? I haven't talked it all over, so its just an idea. Perhaps its too complicated to do. - Sidelight12 Talk 23:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it is already open for multidisciplinary inclusion at Wikiversity Journal. - Sidelight12 Talk 23:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned it is complicated and time-consuming. However, it might be possible to put together various experts who have had some experience at reviewing/refereeing science manuscripts (in their respective fields). The proposal to meta would be for funding up to $30,000 a year for which activities? When I refereed/reviewed for Applied Physics Letters and the Journal of Applied Physics I was employed by the US Navy to perform original research so this reviewing was part of the job. The editors for these two journals did receive a stipend for being editors though. It's not an easy job. They have to get everything done and done right by deadlines. A general journal like the Wikiversity Journal could accept and publish manuscripts from a variety of fields. The journal Nature started that way. My gut response is that putting in the effort to perform research just so the published article might get cited by Wikipedia seems like a waste of time. On the other hand, publishing primary articles is tough to do but might be worth it and would help Wikiversity's reputation. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many good points. Also, Wikipedia might reject a Wiki Journal anyways. It is another editor's opinion to do that, but it's actually still a good idea. I the picture as an overall gain in knowledge, not just inclusion into another single project.
There'd have to be a compromise between what a contributor wants to research and what subject a reviewer wants to see. If there's no compromise, the reviewer wastes their time. Failed articles could also be picked up by others, or be trimmed down. Anyone can contribute as little or as much as they want, since there's no obligation. Wikipedia also allows paid contributors, but in some cases that could cause parity and/or conflicts of interest; that can also go against Wiki's mission in other ways. It's probably too early to expand it past medicine, since few editors are eager and ready to contribute to that journal. - Sidelight12 Talk 11:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree in the following way: Let's say I'm researching the human genome and the editor(s) of the Wikiversity Journal are really interested in a hot topic like room temperature superconductors. Unless there is some direct connection between the two I may research the human genome but upon an inquiry to the editors it would not be worth my effort to submit an article unless they send a message back saying it would be okay. In the case of the Journal of Applied Physics, e.g., the journal has on one of its inside covers a description of the article topics the editorial board would like the editor and the reviewers to consider. This written and readily available description helps potential submitters to decide whether to submit a manuscript or not. It also helps the editor(s) and the reviewers to decide. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 19:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you understand. The two examples would however be from the same discipline, and perhaps extremes were used for an example. The part about a hot topic or an area that lacks research that a review wants to see, and an editor can agree to. Your example of the Journal of Applied Physics is good, and there'd be more collaboration between the reviewer and editor to compromise. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Block[edit source]

Your recent block of User:Leucosticte violates the proposed 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 was not continuing and the block is unnecessary. Separately, your tagged reason for blocking the user is offensive, and borders on libelous material, persistent harassment, and a personal attack on the user, which could result in a legitimate block on your account. You need to remove the block, and you need to take care to focus your comments on the actions of users rather than any personal perceptions of the users themselves. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not It's not, this is why you are a part of the problem, you are condoning that behavior. Bad behavior was continuing. As a matter of fact you are harassing me to condone inappropriate behavior. - Sidelight12 Talk 18:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the problem page as requested. No additional custodial action was requested or warranted. As a custodian, your actions need to follow the policies of the community. Since you consider my posts here to be harassment, I will stop posting here. But since I am no longer welcome to post here, the only alternative will be a community review. You are encouraged to reconsider both the block and your response. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 18:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only blocked his email. His acts need to be watched, and can't be under the rug. Two suicide templates were left, and I deleted them. There's no use in those templates for constructive learning. The suicide article was left in place, because it wasn't instructional, or whatever. - Sidelight12 Talk 18:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say stop posting on my userpage, I said stop harassing me on my userpage. If you're so sure about your actions, I don't know why you feel you have to tell me to undo mine. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not libelous. Creating an article of a drug that allows suicide that sounds instructional is dangerous, and someone who is prone to creating stuff like this is conducting in behavior dangerous to the community. Even so that you had to delete it. 'Libelous' is a magic word for you. If anything, you're more closer to libeling me. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that Dave Braunschweig is a custodian. As seen on the Custodian page, Billinghurst had to make it clear that we can ban someone, which is very basic knowledge. This particular event shows that Dave does not understand when blocks are appropriate. (discuss) 20:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probationary custodianship review[edit source]

Hi Sidelight12. I haven't provided much direct (if anything) in the way of mentorship, other than to allow a long period of time as an admin, but it is probably more than time enough now to review. Could you please summarise your edits over this period, particularly with regard to use of admin tools. I am aware of some concerns expressed by Abd and Dave Braunschweig during this period, so could you also explain about how you've handled that and any other challenging or controversial custodial actions. Then we can discuss and decide next steps. Let me know if I can do anything else. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot from which I said I would do when I applied for custodianship. A lot of this was importing pages, sections of pages, or page histories from Wikipedia (or other wikis) and gave attention to improving them. These pages were informational or instructional and were up for deletion because they did not meet the notability requirement or were instructional.

Examples of my contributions:

  • Helped another user import the resource Aquaria.
  • Imported resource on the constructed language Angos which was high in quality and probably by the original contributor. This page hasn't been updated by the contributor, but this is the perfect place for the creator to conduct original research. It did not meet the notability requirement for Wikipedia. The author of the page was told it was imported, and needs to realize that Wikiversity is the place for it.
  • Consolidate, import, create and improve plant related resources including Arboriculture and hydroculture.
  • Imported Geographic coordinate conversion, to keep the instructional information, giving a Wikipedia editor the privilege to rewrite the Wikipedia article, and the editor took to it. w:talk:Geographic coordinate conversion#Complete rewrite. This is a great improvement, as the sister project has the option to merge it with w:Geographic coordinates.
  • Drinking water was a resource I created at Wikibooks, but it was imported here, because it contains original research.
  • Imported science resources, and improved them with quality edits. At times this mutually benefited Wikiversity and Wikipedia.
  • I've tried to improve Wikiversity guidelines for the purpose of attracting positive contributors who need a place for original research.
  • Encouraged others to contribute to Wikiversity, and encouraged Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, and its parent project.
  • Understanding the use of custodial tools, partly because I can observe and catch on.
  • This is aside from the resources I improved or created from a non-custodian standpoint.
I do what I believe is right, even if there is opposition. As a prohibitionary custodian, I try to be straightforward, and don't let my efforts be corrupted. My efforts were to keep Wikiversity civil. These are still my goals here, to act without corruption, to be straightforward, and to keep Wikiversity civil and a safe place.
The concerns expressed by Abd and Dave were because I blocked a user or the user's email because I saw it a threat to Wikiversity as a community and to its reputation. I believe I got harassed for taking action, and I further believe that Abd's and Dave's behavior was condoning incivility at Wikiversity. I will have no part in guilt if someone gets harmed because of an instructional page on suicide, which was created by leucosite. I have no guilt anyways, but I still want to do the best for my part. For this I blocked the user's email, because all of his actions on Wikiversity need to be made public. The user has poor judgement or worse also from earlier this year's behavior of Leucostite only wanting to make pages pertaining to pedophilia. No, Wikiversity or no where else is a place to soapbox that. I'm sticking to my principles, and I won't step down by abd's unethical behavior of abuse. For this, I say I did nothing wrong. I didn't want to discuss this part here, but it was asked.
Thank you for your time and consideration. FYI, my internet will be disconnected for an uncertain amount of time, then I will have to re set up my computer(s). - Sidelight12 Talk 07:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sidelight12, for taking the time to share this useful summary of your activities during this probationary custodian period. Clearly there have been many useful additions that have happened for Wikiversity through your use of the import tool, general editing, and engagement in the community, and this seems to have been noted and recognised by others as well. Your use of the block/unblock tool, however, has been problematic. This is a powerful tool that can cause much angst if not used very carefully. My understanding is that unless there is an 'emergency', we should strive to discuss with the users of concern about actions of concern and to garner community consensus before (as a last resort) using block/unblock, particularly in cases where we may have a strong opinion or viewpoint of our own. From my review, it seems that your decisions to use the block/unblock tool in debatable/controversial situations without much/any discussion with a mentor and/or consultation with the broader user community has caused disruption above and beyond and the original apparent problems, and thus ideally could have been handled more effectively through more discussion and asking for the advice/assistance of others. As a result, I do not feel confident to recommend you for full custodian status, so this brings this period of probationary custodianship to an end. You have a contributed a lot of value to Wikiversity, so I hope that can continue to happen. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 09:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is eager to post Pedophila soapboxing and how-to do suicide, it is an emergency. Then the person runs over to Wikibooks to continue that, after promising to stop. That is evidence that the person can't help it, and I've noticed how unable the person was able to stop dangerous behavior. I stand by my actions still. When I asked you for help, you didn't respond. When I did engaged the community, it was just abd reinforcing bullshit behavior. The evidence presented was one sided, and the rules presented were cherrypicked by abd. Someone else abused their tools, but that was overlooked. There is an obvious conflict of interest between Dave's and Abd's actions. So I don't care. This place is a dump, not worth contributing to, with such a bullshit environment. Thanks anyways. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user[edit source]

You have been blocked for misuse of custodian tools used to harass other Wikiversity participants. You may be unblocked at any point with agreement not to interact custodially with either Abd or Leucosticte, and with agreement not to seek reprisal against me through the use of custodian tools. There are other, more appropriate avenues for all of this. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks on Leucosticte and Abd have been removed per Wikiversity:Blocking policy item 3, 'A custodian capable of impartial treatment is recommended when possible. Other custodians should ask for a second opinion.' At the risk of appearing involved, I obtained that second opinion. You need to have a conversation with your mentor before any additional use of custodian tools. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 15:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not policies. You need to be desysoped for abusing tools and encouraging drama. You should have been desysoped for abusing blocks. This situation is slanted. I hope someone looks at everyone's behavior, including mine, but especially yours. - sidelight12

Hello[edit source]

Hello Sidelight12,

I have proceeded with an emergency desysop of yourself as you have unblocked yourself, a clear misuse of your administrative privileges and a big no-no on Wikimedia, regardless of the propriety of the original block. I will make a full post on the appropriate noticeboard and will ping you from it. Snowolf How can I help? 17:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to be desysoped too, because his block was an inapproprite block to start with and he also unblocked himself. He abused his tools. This whole thing will be looked, not by people who are reinforcing each other's beliefs. So far, this is not a neutral point of view, and I encourage a fair assessment of this entire situation. - Sidelight12 , Oct 16.

False allegations of Persistent Harassment by Dave[edit source]

You are hereby warned that, per Wikiversity: Blocking policy, your recent edits constitute 'persistent harassment or personal attacks' against Abd and Leucosticte. You are welcome to pursue your request that someone review my actions. That review will include my closing of your complaints against Abd and Leucosticte, and closing of Abd's request for a warning against you. Any actions by you toward either Abd or Leucosticte not precipitated by new activity from them first will result in your account being blocked until you agree to stop harassing them. You've been an excellent contributor to Wikiversity. Please stop harassing other users and go back to creating excellent content. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 12:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't harassed anyone. You and Abd harass me. It's hard to explain it, but yes you both do. Abd pushes his weight around (this is harassment), and wants to drag the embarrassing shit of Lecostite's favorite subject of pedophilia on my userpage. Fine, I'll just leave this shit here for everyone to see what a joke that Wikiversity is, and that it is being driven into the ground, and most of all, not by me. So I'm here to clean up mess. What did I do that constitute's harassment? Is it because I reposted something that needs to be seen by someone who is capable of handling it, and not by someone INVOLVED. You call that harassment? - Sidelight12 Talk 10:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only wrote truth about behaviors, backed up with links to the behavior, so how is that harassment? Oh! I get it, you are trying to shut me up. Oh yeah, but isn't that harassment on your part? And for the 1 millionth, 500th 100 thousandth 102ndth time, That is a not a policy. Nobody works for you, so stop trying to take pride in others' works. Pure extortion on your part, to make such threats, especially when your actions are clearly wrong. It isn't the first time you made threats using such extortion. You edit warred within less than three hours, and if I restore it, you threaten to block me. This isn't the first time you've misused your custodial tools either, just you got away with it. Of course if I speak more truth you will try to block me. - Sidelight12 Talk 14:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This link will stay on my userpage [2]. A corrupt behavior of someone removing something 2 hours after it being posted. Also for the record, you claimed I didn't object to someone being unblocked, I actually did object to that, see above. Again Corrupt and COI behavior. - Sidelight12 Talk 14:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, all of your actions against Leucosticte regarding pedophilia have been based on a false premise. He never created any content on pedophilia and there are no posts from him directly advocating for pedophilia. His posts on the subject all relate to the right to discuss pedophilia and cultural responses to pedophiles. In that regard, every action you have taken against him has only proven his point, reinforcing and continuing the discussion. He moved on to other subjects long ago, but you're still stuck on the issue, and still spreading false accusations regarding his activities.
Abd and I have staunchly defended his right to academic debate, while at the same time cautioning him on the limits of this community, requiring that he seek and obtain consensus before creating controversial content, and preventing him from violating any existing policies or guidelines.
Likewise, I have, and will continue to staunchly defend your right to criticize my actions as custodian. But I cannot allow you to continue to wrongfully attack others without provocation. That is persistent harassment, and that is why you have been warned that it must stop.
As stated multiple times, you have been an excellent contributor to Wikiversity. I again encourage you to go back to creating excellent content rather than spending your time harassing others. Creating content is much more rewarding and fulfilling.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You simply conduct in "IDIDNHEARTHAT" tactics. I haven't harassed anyone, you and abd harass me by pushing your way around. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must not be a duck. It is simply blind to say he doesn't have a tendency to soapbox it, and you will make up every possible excuse to deny that, because someone more than likely probably emailed you some bull story. I'm speaking the truth, and you call that harassment. Which subject did he jump to next? oh right, suicide and bleach, and go ahead and tell me that's a lie.
This has more to do with your corruption (like repeated revert warring within 3 hours), which continues, and abd's continuing misconduct all over wikiprojects, which he somehow gets away with. He went dormant for a while, but I'll predict he starts up again, I have no proof of the future, but just watch it happen, and if he doesn't it will only be a hypocritical attempt to try to prove my prediction wrong. My last prediction that leucostite couldn't stop was right, and I was even surprised still. Abd's disruption has been documented before, and that same behavior continues still. You enable it. These are problems continuing now, still. It is highly offensive of leucostite to post shit here, and you're in denial about it. It is even offensive for abd to do everything in his will to promote anarchy, to defend those acts, not for being right but to defend leucoste. and for you to enable it, it has been said by others you enable it.
This is also a warning not to change headings in my userspace, which I will repost on your talkpage. Another corrupt behavior, as an attempt by you denying your wrongdoing. No one works for you, so stop telling me to create content. And it is travesty to say you defend people's rights. The reason you change headings and revert war, is because you are hiding things. Recently you and abd tried to bully your way into pressuring someone else think they are wrong. well you are, and despite what you got away with, you are wrong. Someone needs to step in here. - Sidelight12 Talk 09:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem intent on altering this content for your own reality, I will stop responding to this thread. If you have any additional custodial concerns, please post at Wikiversity:Custodian feedback. Thank you for your cooperation. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's what you did. Anyone who didn't know better can say, both of us interpret who harassed who differently. You can't even see that. You are in denial, I haven't harassed anyone. Your claims about harassment are false. In fact, Adb harasses, habitually irritates, and chased a few people out. Dragging that SHIT on my page was harassment. I've warned you not to change headers in my talkpage. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]