Wikiversity:Request custodian action

Welcome You can create a new request. Sign with --~~~~. Wikiversity support staff are trusted users who have access to technical features (such as protecting and deleting pages, blocking users, and undoing these actions) that help with maintenance of Wikiversity. Other request pages: Requests for deletion Requests for importing (e.g., from Meta or Wikibooks): Request for CheckUser Other pages you may be looking for: Comment on custodian actions Notices for custodians Archive (old requests)

Administering Wikiversity Action required The open task template Maintenance Requests for deletion Requests for speedy deletion Requests for unblock Copyright violations Proposed deletions Pending deletions Requests for custodian action Notices for custodians Templates Introduction to templates Guide to templates Welcome templates Page flag templates Navigation templates Admin templates Template task force Development Developing Wikiversity Wikiversity logos Service community Metadata MediaWiki Project MediaWiki Technical needs Reference Policies Custodians Custodianship (policy) How to be a Wikimedia sysop Mission Managing vandalism MediaWiki Handbook Parser functions Logs Bots Consensus Statistics Events and news Announcements Wikimania

Custodian requests	Entries
Purge cache
Edit protected page	1
Speedy deletion	33
Expired prods	4
Requests for Deletion	23
Unblock requests	0
Possible copyvio	2
History merge	0

Block of User:KayYayPark

By my assessment, KayYayPark (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) repeatedly engaged in an inappropriate promotion of his previous unpublished or poorly published thesis, last time on a page I moved here: User:KayYayPark/System- vs. User-Oriented Information Retrieval. His thesis is currently available at A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval. When I saw such a promotion, I moved it to user space instead of outright deleting it. And then he did it again. He has been wasting my time for too long a time now. A most recent interaction is at User_talk:Dan_Polansky#System-_vs._User-Orientation. Even Gemini does not agree with his claim that his thesis presents an important contribution.

I propose a 3-day block: repeated inappropriate self-promotion. Alternatively, one could prevent him from creating new pages for one week; he would then have the time to fill in references in A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval and create the missing charts/diagrams.

I am willing to respond to inquiries and provide more substantiation. I have kept it relatively brief for now. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

(By the way, Wikiversity presents ample opportunity at appropriate self-promotion. Delivering solid content under one's official name is a form of self-promotion, an appropriate one as long as using one's real name is not prohibited, which it isn't. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@KayYayPark's main space page creations have been moved to user space and the user has been indefinitely blocked from main space editing. The repeated creation of low-quality main space content has proven too administratively burdensome. KayYayPark is welcome to developed content in the user space and then request it to be moved to main space and to discuss unblocking at that point. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding curator conduct User:Dan Polansky

There is a request to custodians in Colloquium. I would move it here, but since the curator, responded there, I am not sure weather it can be moved here. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 20:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Block of User:KayYayPark or prohibition of new pages

A look at recently created pages by KayYayPark (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) shows more low-quality/dubious-quality pages, some of which obviously unduly promotional. The statements to the effect that ChatGPT responded that KayYayPark is a key contributor to some fields seem likely to be fraudulent, unless he previously conditioned ChatGPT to say these things in some way.

To my mind, this is problematic and unethical conduct. Block would be in order, but as a curator, I do not have the blocking tools. I can start deleting his pages (no need to move to user space; I left even some of his promotional material in mainspace, and he can edit there). I welcome not only block but other inputs from custodians/curators. Is my thinking wrong? Why is his behavior ok? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I just wonders since when is low-quality unwelcomed in Wikiversity? Juandev (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Surely there needs to be some minimum quality requirement, or else Wikiversity becomes an unmitigated junkyard. This should especially be the case for mainspace pages written in wiki-voice (no indication it is one author speaking), as is the case e.g. in Context Indexing Executive Summary. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@KayYayPark's main space page creations have been moved to user space and the user has been indefinitely blocked from main space editing. The repeated creation of low-quality main space content has proven too administratively burdensome. KayYayPark is welcome to developed content in the user space and then request it to be moved to main space and to discuss unblocking at that point. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Later: The user keeps on adding new, redundant content, e.g. Context Indexing Summary. I cannot determine the intent of the user; it could be some kind of wild/crazy self-promotion but it could be something else altogether. I cannot block him (I am not a custodian), nor can I prevent him from creating new pages. I can start deleting the pages and protecting them, but that is likely to lead to a chase, where he is likely to invent new headwords under which to post content. Can a custodian help, or explain why no help is coming? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

He now created Executive Summary, yes, under this title. This is absurd. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Removal of pages

Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Final lint push.

Special:LintErrors Down from over a 1000! to just under 200 or so. Can someone take a look at clearing out some of the last reminiang priority ones?. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Much appreciated, but I'm not sure how you're getting these numbers. E.g.:

Background color inline style rule exists without a corresponding text color (195,881 errors)

There are a lot more than 200. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

That one can be safely ignored for the time being (even the main page isn't dark mode compliant yet (!) Matrix (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Indefinite block for Harold Foppele

I request an indefinite block of Harold Foppele (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account). The behavior that emerged in the English Wikiversity and previously the English Wikipedia shows pretty conclusively, to my mind, that this is an intentionally disruptive account. I can provide more detail upon request, but this will be only meaningful if someone starts looking into the matter.

If this matter is not handled, my best option is to disengage from this user account, which is what I have largely done, except in my user space page tracking problems, but the user account is still not satisfied. The only place where I engaged recently is by adding a tracking item to User:Dan Polansky/Problem reports (about Wikiversity problems), a page not indexed by Google. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see a lot of context for issues as such, but this is a previous thread that I think is relevant: Wikiversity:Colloquium#Concern_regarding_curator_conduct_User:Dan_Polansky. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I Strongly Support this block and I do not suspect this user has been hacked. He has been banned from page creation on English WP where several editors are working to undue the damage caused to the encyclopedia. I nominated a page I discovered earlier for speedy deletion because it is nonsense gibberish that I strongly believe to be generated by a LLM. Unfortunately, many people such as Harold Foppele who have little to no academic qualifications, but are relatively competent as compared to lay people in a number of academic subjects are easily led into a phenomenon in which they spiral into the belief that they are subject matter experts, or worse, that they've made a scientific or mathematical discovery.[1] Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Chaos Theory Extended - for posterity, since it's not in the list of articles below. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Justin courtesy ping - but you may want to bring Harold there as well. I don't know how different the expectations for user conduct are from WP to here, but this user is littering both WP and WV with disinformation that I suspect was generated by a LLM (per above). That said, the user is now being very combative with myself and another user I alerted on WP about the same behavior he was page-creation banned for on WP. This sort of conduct toward other users is unacceptable on WP and I cannot imagine how it can be productive for WV either, if the goal is to have educational content for the internet. Example of behavior towards me on WV: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jtneill&oldid=2778451 Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the combativeness just the post that "user x is pointing to..."? That doesn't seem so outrageous that it warrants some action. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, the behavior this user is displaying here is unacceptable on WP, but I'm not familiar with WV policy. Making up a lie to support that users are sockpuppeting is an example of a laundry list of combative behavior toward users who are trying to do something about the fact that this user is creating massive amounts of disinformation, likely using a LLM to do so, without any expertise to examine the generated material before adding it to WV.

If WV is meant to provide non-fictional education, this needs to be addressed. The behavior in response to attempts to clean it up from this user should warrant some sort of action to stop the disruptive behavior. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

As I can prove by : User:Harold Foppele/Quantum entanglement of photons and their statistics (I'm not sure of the title yet) that was created before Revolving Doormat stepped in, by simply looking at the "view history" this is the way I build pages. First find a source + refs then create the article step by step. @Koavf: please check the creation times if you like. It should proof the way I write a new page. Sometimes the writing and re-writing takes a long time, as does the finding compatible word claryfications. Thanks Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You’re saying you first read seven references, just to reach a 3 word conclusion about quantum entanglement, namely:

Applications: cryptography, teleportation.

Given that you citebombed the entire article, and given your WP history, the suggestion that you’re looking for sources first before you create an article is absolutely absurd ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

WOW is that what it is not all about? The source, the source and nothing but the source?

I assume we are still talking about the above mentioned page. You obviously did not read any further. If you should look better at the page you will see that its just a set up. It must yet be worked out. But you never came to the section ==Start== where a link is to the complete article. To take in all that information and write the page is a hell of a lot of work. At least I have reliable cites. So i suggest you go citebomb yourself. <sorry> You and Revolving Doormat work as a team? Thanks Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There are only two options here:

• you’ve seen applications of quantum entanglement mentionned somewhere and you decided to look for references in support of your claim
• you’ ve actually read and fully comprehended the seven articles you referenced, but were unable to summarize them beyond 3 words.

Both cases are big red flags ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you actually read what I write? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and given that they were only 3 words in the subsection “quantum entaglement”, it didn’t take that long.

And no, the rest of the “article” didn’t put those 3 words, nor my criticism, into context ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

So again you did not read it till the end. I suggest you to read below. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

With “the end”, do you mean

Waveguide BS key for integrated photonics.

because i don’t see how that supports your case.

My criticism is that you claim that you first thoroughly read references before you create an article. My criticism is that I find that very hard to believe, based on you citebombing the entire article, using the “3 words” mentionned earlier as an example. ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

NO : User:Harold_Foppele/Quantum_entanglement_of_photons_and_their_statistics#Test So you just proved my point that you don't read. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You mean the reference list? What does that have to do with the content you provided or with my criticism? Absolutely nothing.

But ok, let me give another random other example then:

2001: KLM protocol for quantum computing with linear optics.

the reference you provide doesn’t mention the “KLM protocol” (whatever that might be) once. Ergo, you didn’t base that claim on the cited reference.

The reason it’s so easy to give random examples is because it’s the case for pretty much every inline citation you provide. So please don’t make the claim that you read all the references first and then write an article based on them ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I assume you found the section ==Test==. If so, then again there is a list of refs. I am just sorting it out — my goodness, it's a DRAFT and I don't make any claim. They're just reminders to use the cites. Instead of 2001:KLM, read 2001:Poop (excuse me). It's less than a framework and you were:

• not reading it,
• just criticizing it,
• and refusing to admit that you missed the text after the first <Reference> while it is less than 0.05% finished. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Got it, from now on I’ll just read the cites and interpret your contributions as “poop”.

I think this sums all your contributions up perfectly. I strongly support the block. ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Knill, E.; Laflamme, R.; Milburn, G. KLM Ref#8 and NO I didn'í check it yet and neither did you. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ergo, when you said:

”this is the way I build pages. First find a source + refs then create the article step by step.”

you were disingenuous. Thank you for confirming. Oh and contrary to you, I did look up the paper and ctrl+f’ed “KLM”. Because I actually read references… ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't make a fool of yourself. The refs all belong to and are in the article and ofcourse you didn't read that either. As I mentioned before this is not a very fruitfull disscussion Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I actually did, because it’s easy for me to access the reference based on the DOI. ~2025-38978-95 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You cannot blame this behavior on account of it being a draft. Though drafts are not sandboxes, that is what the sandbox is for. Regardless, this same issue exists in your mainspace pages, as demonstrated below. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You should know, but since you are a "novice editor" according to Ldm1954, that Wikiversity has sandboxes and userspaces. They both work simmilar the difference is that you can easier title them. They are free to the user. Wikiversity has a draft space but not alike Wikipedia. The same goes for WP:OR which is a capital sin at Wikipedia but encouraged at Wikiversity. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Cool. I didn't say anything about OR as I already read that is encouraged here, however, that doesn't mean you can create disinformation that is unsupported by citations you provide and violate copyright laws.

Regardless, what's in your userspace shows the same behavior. You are creating content before you find a reference for it, which indicates no research at all. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually you are repeating 2025.... Look at the page, it has some 68 references and I expect it to be some 80 for a 29 page paper. The page (is not an article as in Wikipedia) has very little text and A LOT of refs and a LONG paper to incorporate. How about you help me to create and expand it? The motto of Wikiversity contrary to Wikipedia is: "Be Bold". So go for it.Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Outdent @W:user:Revolving Doormat I challenge both of you to jointly create the page. Meaning I do all the work and you do some controlling. Or work actual together if you like. Up to you two. Deal? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The crux of the issue is that the pages you are creating have little no basis in physical reality and are not supported by the citations you provide. You seem to self-admit that you have no expertise in these topics, so how can you possibly examine an entire article on the subject matter for coherence and accuracy, let alone author it for the public to learn from?

The point is that it's nonsense that isn't supported by the citations you provide. This is the exact same problem your pages had on WP, and it was noted that someone else deleted one of your pages because the citations were also hallucinated. This is why you cannot create pages there any longer. I do not understand why you are creating education and encyclopedia content for the public on subject matter you are not qualified to teach. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

So you two work as a team obviously. Is it so hard to respond to what i wrote above? Only read the first part and they say this is rubish? Ofcourse it is! Its just a basic start with 64 refs and 29 pages of the article to incorporate in this page. Cheers Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

All of your arguments are logical fallacies that avoid the reasonable criticism that the content you are creating is dis-informational gibberish that does not in anyway summarize or represent the references you are using as citations. There are so many numerous instances of this in all of your articles.

Content that is supported appears to all have been taken from Wikipedia. Ie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You dont want to go into what I wrote above and just repeat yourself. If you dont want to respond than this is not a fruitfull discussion. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Lobbing spurious claims and ad hominem is not worth responding to. The only thing that matters is something you will not address. Your citations either don't support the content, which doesn't make physical sense; or it does, and that content and its citation has been unlawfully copy-and-pasted from Wikipedia. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I challenge you to prove that! Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. From Chaos Theory Extended

Some definitions of chaos do not rely on sensitivity to initial conditions. One example is combinatorial chaos, which arises when a discrete combinatorial rule is applied repeatedly.

The citation you give is [2], which does not mention "combinatorial chaos," a made-up term. It also is not an example I would use to support the first sentence, as the paper is not describing a lack of reliance to initial condition sensitivity. It is describing the undecidable nature of certain dynamical systems and showing it is algorithmically equivalent to Alan Turing's halting problem, even when you know precisely the initial conditions. The process described is applying a continuous transformation, not a discrete one repeatedly. That tells me that you did not read this source to create the content, and likely do not understand what you wrote to choose a proper source to support it.

For copyvio: compare Chaos Theory Extended#Sensitivity to initial conditions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory#Sensitivity_to_initial_conditions Straight to the book and page number! Did you even read this book? Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

So you actually say: You find a reference at Wikipedia and NO you may not use that? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No he does not. Would you like to have another guess? Hint: it’s the same criticism you’ve been getting for half a year now. ~2025-38781-32 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

And you two are not working as a team ? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No. Now can you please for once actually listen to the criticism? ~2025-38781-32 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I quite clearly said that you do not appear to be reading your sources, and you 1) violate copyright laws by copying and pasting from WP and 2) make up nonsense on topics that you don't understand.

I still believe point 2 to be LLM generation based on several common patterns, particularly under the heading "Bottom Line." Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

A recent piece of evidence is this: User talk:Jtneill#Publishing transcripts. Here, the user pretends not to understand that copying copyrighted material into Wikiversity, which requires CC-BY-SA, is disallowed; I find this not credible, especially after we explained copyright matters to him before. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to get context: look at Contest removal of article above and : Wikiversity:Colloquium#Concern_regarding_curator_conduct_User:Dan_Polansky, I think this speaks for itself. Please let some bureaucrat put a stop to this. Also look at the "view history" of this paragraph. It might be meaningfull. Kind regards,Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

For specifics: the user copied into User:Harold Foppele/sandbox-2 the text or parts of text of There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom by Richard Feynman, found e.g. at https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You forgot: There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The above link W:There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom is irrelevant: it points to Wikipedia, which is about Feynman's article and does not replicate the text of the article. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

No kidding let me rephrase that: Please be seriousHarold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to refactor this conversation because it's not going in a helpful direction. Dan, if you want to propose an indefinite block, I think you need more than just "this is disruptive, look it up". Please give me some indication of what this user has done that is disruptive, and particularly, provide a relevant diff(s). I did a preliminary search (as noted in my first comment), but I don't see something so egregious as to require an indef block or any attempts to correct behavior. I've never interacted with this user prior to this thread and since it's been posted, he seems reasonable enough, so I'm disinclined to think that he's here for purely disruptive purposes or just refuses to abide by basic norms. Additionally, while issues at other wikis can be a minor factor in assessing if someone should be blocked here, it's pretty weak evidence and either way, he's not blocked on any WMF wikis, so I'm not seeing a persistent pattern of cross-wiki disruption. I just need something more to go on here to even understand why this was posted at all.

It's unfortunate, but sometimes it happens that two editors for whatever reason clash and neither is necessarily in the wrong or so in the wrong that it requires that one of them be forced to not participate. My suspicion is that's what's happening here and maybe just generally trying to avoid conflict is the best solution. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain how his above "No kidding let me rephrase that: Please be serious" is a remotely acceptable/productive response? Why is there no space and no period before "Harold Foppele" in 'No kidding let me rephrase that: Please be seriousHarold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)'? Why is there no punctuation after "No kidding"? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you find the interaction the user showed in https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harold_Foppele&oldid=2760143 reasonable? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this edit that removes a communication from mainspace talk page reasonable? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Stop acting like a baby please. From user:Dan Polansky

Dan Polansky is described in more detail at Meta:User:Dan Polansky. He is trained in computer science (master's degree from a Czech university), earned money as a programmer and software engineer, and loves real philosophy and stubborn independent attempt to think clearly.

Do you always write in the third person about yourself? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

How is the imperative "Stop acting like a baby please" remotely acceptable? The above could as well be removed as off-topic, since the subject of this thread is Harold Foppele, not Dan Polansky (myself). The tactic employed is one of diversion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

As I just wrote above, I don't think this conversation is progressing in a productive way and I also just suggested that the two of you please avoid direct confrontation. Next thing I see, there are posts by DP which do not answer my questions and then HF showing up just to write some juvenile, off-topic nonsense. Guys, stop. Dan, if you have specific diffs that could justify an indefinite block, please provide them. Otherwise, instead of tacitly saying that you two should stop interacting to explicitly requesting that the two of you please avoid interacting in the immediate. Harold, if Dan provides some kind of actual rationale for a block, you would not be unilaterally blocked without some clear justification, so you don't need to jump in to defend yourself at this juncture. This entire thing could be resolved by the two of you just chilling out and not hounding one another. Again, please stop. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The indefinite block would only be justified by a series/collection of items, not the individual items per se (on their own). Above, I pointed out multiple problematic items: 1) sustained copyright violation despite explanations; 2) flippant/incivil responses above, e.g. "Stop acting like a baby please"; 3) problematic communication thread showing multiple red flags (by means of a link). One could provide extensive evidence, but first you would need to agree that you see at least some problematic items. If all items that I raise you classify as non-issues, then I really have no case to build. The most compelling evidence is probably in Wikipedia, including his pretend naivety in asking whether his Dutch draft is good for English Wikipedia, and multiple emptying of AfD page, but you seem to think they are less relevant for the English Wikiversity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan.

1. Persistent copyvios is a serious concern. Per the conversation that I had on my talk page and the fact that I deleted what is likely a copyvio in HF's userspace, he responded positively and seems to understand in principle that he cannot upload copyright violations here. Uploading even one more copyvio here would definitely be grounds for a block in my view, since that is a serious issue and he's been made aware of it. Not sure about indef block, but certainly a block. @Harold Foppele:, please ensure that you do not upload copyrighted material here that does not have a compatible license. If you are unsure, err on the side of not uploading.
2. Generally hostile, puerile, or altogether unhelpful language is also a grounds for blocking, but it is not as big of a concern. Persistent unhelpful comments are inappropriate and I would like to request that everyone refrain from those and please be civil. I am speaking from experience here, as I have (rightfully) been blocked for having hostile communications. Please do not respond if you cannot respond in a civil and helpful manner.
3. Off-wiki activity (including activity at other wikis) is weak but if it's particularly egregious, then it can result in a block I suppose. I don't see anything like that here, so that's just a distraction.

In short, please do not upload copyvios (that justifies a block), do not badger one another (that applies to everyone and can justify a block over time), and please just take some time to cool off. I don't see a need for a block at this time, but will respect any sysop who does. I propose that we just move onwards and upwards and both of you please think twice about your communications and how constructive they are. In particular, don't hound one another and don't post juvenile slights and insults, which are not individually that much of a problem, but in total are poison for a wiki.

Anyone else, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Justin The talk about dots and commma's is ofcource not important. This is my last response to the rantings.(my opinion}. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 10:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Justin, do you really think that the above overt disregard for English spelling, spacing, punctuation, etc. is just an unintentional accident rather than trolling? I struggle to believe that. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't know or particularly care: poorly-formatted messages are an annoyance and sometimes they can be so unintelligible as to cause a real problem, but I can't imagine the scenario where punctuation is grounds for an indef block. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No, individual bad item like this is not grounds for indef; it is only one item that together with other items create a larger picture. It solidifies the picture of an annoying troll, together with other elements/pixels/whatever-that-is. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a persistent pattern of lo-/no-value comments adds up to trolling that is worth blocking. As I mentioned above when I warned against generally unhelpful language, dumb comments that are not helpful should be avoided. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

As an attempt to start collecting more evidence, I will link pages from Wikipedia that, to my mind, show a very problematic editor pretty clearly:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harold_Foppele&oldid=1306946342, 20 August 2025
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Harold_Foppele&oldid=1310762342, 11 September 2025

I may single out problematic items on these pages later. For a start, "I'm not playing a card, i just stated a fact, i am 80 and you hold that againsty me." is a big red flag. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Quantum mechanics topics created by Harold Foppele account is reminiscent of similar Wikiversity-irrelevant items created by Marshallsumter. One hypothesis to be investigated is whether this could be the operator of Marshallsumter account. Of note is that the operator of Marshallsumter account is quite possibly an impersonator of someone called Hoff, but we do not know that positively. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit by the user is inappropriate. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

And I overlooked this: Template:Quantum mechanics topics is another copyvio, this time from W:Template:Quantum mechanics topics, created on 4 Nov 2025 with no edit summary indicating the origin. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Page User:Harold Foppele/sandbox-3 was created by the user on 11 November 2025 without an edit summary as a copyvio at least of W:Quantum entanglement; example copied sentence: "The following subsections use the formalism and theoretical framework developed in the articles bra–ket notation and mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics". The two pages are not the same and show significant differences (probably resulting from modifications including changes in formulations) but also show substantive similarity. One is not allowed to take a copyrighted artifact as a base for a derived artifact without attribution in this way. (Why a fork of a Wikipedia article would be good to have in Wikiversity, in wiki-voice, is unclear either.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me also make it on record that I suspect that the Harold Foppele account has been hacked and that the 2025 edits are not by the original person who made the edits about ten years ago, but that seems hard to prove conclusively using the methods of positivist epistemology (I am a Popperian anyway). Perhaps someone knows more about how to investigate these kinds of matter. This note is important at least in part to make it clear to any reader that we do not claim that a real Dutch man named Harold Foppele with photo such-and-such, an old man, was actually disrupting the English Wikiversity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

For ease of tracing, the user now moved User:Harold Foppele/sandbox-3 to Quantum a spooky action at a distance, an ungrammatical headword. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Chess

Chess/Play with other Wikiversitans

Chess/Board Configurations

Matter Elements and Particles

Open quantum system

Polonium dichloride dibromide

Quantum

Quantum A Matter Of Size

Quantum a spooky action at a distance

Quantum: A Walk Through the Universe

Quantum Formulas Collection

Quantum mechanics measurements

Template:Infobox quantum computing

Template:Periodic table (navbox)

Template:Quantum mechanics topics

~Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 12:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to copy material from another WMF wiki, please request that it be imported. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thx, will do Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand how someone with apparent no understanding of quantum mechanics should be allowed to create mainspace articles on this advanced subject that is notoriously hard to understand, using some collage method augmented with GenAI, under ungrammatical titles to boot (e.g. "Quantum A Matter Of Size"). This is absurd. With the Marshallsumter fiasco in fresh memory, the English Wikiversity must do better. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion going on regarding Dan's behaviour at Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky resulted in "temporarily removing the Curator flag" by User:Mu301. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to any policy-based argument for deleting any material on Wikiversity. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe archiving this mess for starters? The import of Template:Periodic table (navbox) works flawless. Thanks again ! Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Justin: When I was doing the administrative/curatorial work of moving pages out of mainspace before I was emergency desysopped in the absence of an actual emergency, including moving those by the mega-prankster Marshallsumter, I was using the language from WV:Deletions, "learning outcomes are scarce". That language is extremely vague and requires heavy interpretation, filling in of detail. I did fill in the detail. The page does not have the status of a policy, only of a guideline. But then, being a guideline (overridable quasi-policy), it allows leeway, something of an administrative discretion. So if you are asking for a formally approved policy, tough luck, and tough luck doing any curatorial work in the English Wikiversity. If you are content with a guideline and with interpreting the language "learning outcomes are scarce" in the sense of "learning outcomes for people other than the page creator are scarce" and adding further detail, then I think there is a good rationale for moving the very likely inaccurate, possibly incoherent pages created by an editor with not even a superficial demonstrated understanding of quantum mechanics out of mainspace. Sure enough, learning outcomes from Marshallsumter's incoherent prank-pages is not necessarily "scarce" either since one can learn something from his incoherent collections of quotations, so there is another layer of non-literal interpretation required, in the direction of "things have to make sense", perhaps "pages have to show minimum coherence". But even if you move these pages out of mainspace, the obvious troll Harold Foppele is going to continue the disruption. Indef is the right intervention. Alright. Let's wait for the I-told-you-so moment, perhaps much later, after the English Wikiversity project comes to its senses and starts to actually curate the content and block disruptors. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If pages include clear misinformation, then yes, let's delete them. I haven't read these pages. Are they full of misinformation? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Support Block. I would like to bring to this discussion the information that he has just been indef blocked from page creation on the english wikipedia, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_page_creation_block_of_User:Harold_Foppele. Another editor just brought his pages here to my attention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ldm1954#Thank you, from which I found this discussion. I have not checked all the pages here, but from what I can see they fail for the same reasons. N.B., apologies but I don't really want to create an account here unless I have to, so please use my talk page above. I will do a ping on my web page of others on the english wikipedia who voiced opinions on the block and previous behavior. N.B., I do not see any activity on other wikis from his global log. ~2025-38873-79 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The account . ~2025-38873-79 pointing to this :

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#c-Revolving_Doormat-20251206155900-Dan_Polansky-20251106181800 accidentially pointing at user:Dan Polansky

and the non existing accout User:Revolving Doormat are acting as one unit.

@Mu301: Could you please take this in considderation at Wikiversity:Community_Review/Dan_Polansky

Thanks Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

User:VeronicaJeanAnderson

The page User:VeronicaJeanAnderson is heavily and apparently arbitarily edited by User:Allostasissy. Since identity (being the same person) of the account operators has not been established, I would be inclined to undo the edits and protect the user page for, say, one week (I have the tools to do so).

Should I refrain from doing that? If so, why? What are the applicable principles, even not-yet-codified principles? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A probably relevant response is in Special:Diff/2768578. To that I would respond above all that using multiple user accounts is very unlikely to hide the identity/selfsameness of the account operators to anyone who cares to determine it; editing the same user pages, all in similar peculiar style is very revealing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems like there have been several users editing the userpage, spanning back to at least 2023. I'm inclined to delete the page and block all accounts involved since it doesn't seem to be useful and is more disruptive to our community. The response linked is also strange and hard to understand (from my perspective). Anyone else's thoughts? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

That seems harsh but perhaps not entirely inappropriate. The person seems to be having some long-term challenge, if that's what it should be called. And for that challenge, being on-line on wiki is perhaps not particularly helpful either?

However, I do not find the pages really disruptive; I find them bizarre. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I based my approach on the evidence that this has been going on for a long time, Allostasissy is adamant on continuing this practice per their message, and other disruptions from these accounts have taken place (see here from 2020, potentially offensive content being written about Russians here, and other inappropriate statements from the userpage like "I hear the CIA is helping inform this world of wiki" and "Trump's own to have killed Charlie Kirk (as an example) as someone who hates him because no one knows hate quite like a Christian who feels disenfranchised when they learn that the land we call ours was stolen just like Israel is stealing Palestinian land now.").

In addition, the claims of "being terrorized" and having their "brother [plan] an insurrection [against them, leading to] safety issues" cannot [seemingly] be substantiated and may just lead to more unnecessary admin work from the team - but I'm open to my approach being challenged. Maybe instead of an outright block, the userpage can be moved into a project where all interested accounts can edit in? An example could be User:VeronicaJeanAnderson/(page name)? In this scenario edits won't be made to an account's userpage, but to a designated userspace.

I also agree that I'm not sure if Wikiversity is the most suitable place for this user's "project", but perhaps taking a step back and moving the userpage into a projectspace could be the best move at the moment. We can check the behavior of these editors periodically to confirm that they are editing within their designated space and not posting offensive content, but I'm in doubt of that at the moment per the evidences. I think it's good to put both potential solutions out there and gather people's ideas. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be making solid points and reference and quote solid evidence. I'm inclined to agree with you. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll allow this to go for a few more days. If no other objections, then I'll notify the author of this conversation and that they will be allowed a few days to collect their content and move it off-wiki before I delete the userpage. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Having thought about it more, I propose to not delete the user pages. Deleting user pages should be an extreme measure, taken only in extraordinary circumstances (copyvio, libel, doxxing, revealing personally identifying infos, etc.) Deleting user pages reduces auditability as well.

As for the blocks, I propose to issue one-year block, but not longer. That is already rather long. It signals clearly to the user that the matter is very serious. The user has not caused any harm, as far as I can tell; there is no clean-up effort that we have to run, no reverts necessary, etc. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the last 2025 series of edits to the user page and protected the page for a year, as a pretty mild measure. This removed the most troubling statements by User:Allostasissy. I support a one-year-long block for the account that edited the page, User:Allostasissy. Such a block can even be seen as a protection of the user from self-harm; the user seems to be in some troubled mental state. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dan. It seems the troubling statements have been removed. I would not want to block the account just yet as I'd like to notify @Allostasissy: that the individual's contributions are not welcomed on the project and I'd like for them to move their content to their private wiki, firstly. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 11:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Dan Polansky

I would like to ask you to assess the behavior of Dan Polansky, who in my opinion continues to violate Etiquette, calls users who disagree with him trolls, questions their expertise, tests them, etc. This is most evident in Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky, where he has already indicated that two discussion opponents are trolls. Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The coddling of overt disruptor Harold Foppele (substantiation is in RCA above) and proven provocateur and disruptor Juandev (substantiation in CR above) must stop. The English Wikiversity must start to properly curate its content and discipline disruptive editors. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Community Review/Dan Polansky is underway; outcome pending. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

User KYPark

In User talk:KYPark, the user is making a legal threat and does not accept my explanation that it should be removed. I no longer have curator tools and I did not have blocking tools anyway. Someone able to use the blocking tool should explain to the user, with the use of coercive measures/enforcement measures of the appropriate severity, that such conduct is unacceptable. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week with talk page access removed. Will re-assess the situation after a week has passed. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@KayYayPark's main space page creations have been moved to user space and the user has been indefinitely blocked from main space editing. The repeated creation of low-quality main space content has proven too administratively burdensome. KayYayPark is welcome to develop content in the user space and then request it to be moved to main space and to discuss unblocking at that point. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 02:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

error in creating an entry

I was trying to add a Website "Kiosk Guides for Learning" https://www.studygns.net that is not copyrighted freely accessible compendium of guides that has been translated into 38 languages that is also ad-free. Applicable middle school through returning adult but I got a warning that I do not understand. Josfland (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What was the warning ? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Human NAT10 - Page help

Hi, I am a new user trying to save an educational page in my sandbox and wikiverity that includes external links. The system keeps blocking me. Could an admin assist? Thank you. K. R. T. L. K. Dayananda (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Request page creation block for Harold Foppele

It was recently brought to my attention at Wikipedia:Talk:Ldm1954#Thank you that User:Harold Foppele has been creating inappropriate pages in Wikiversity. He has a long history of this on the english Wikipedia, pages with major problems of Wikipedia:OR, Wikipedia:COATRACK, Wikipedia:AI which recently resulted in a indef page creation block of him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting page creation block of User:Harold Foppele. You can see from the people who responded there that many tried hard to help him and got nowhere. A user commented recently at Wikipedia:Talk:Ldm1954#Thank you that his actions are a clear example of Wikipedia:NOTHERE.

At least some of his pages here are comparably bad, inaccurate science etc. I am requesting a page creation block on him. I will then ask for a few volunteers at Wikipedia:WikiProject:Physics to help me curate them. However, we cannot do this on moving targets.

I am requesting this here in some detail as a mention of the block at #Indefinite block for Harold Foppele led to the response by User:Harold Foppele:

The account . ~2025-38873-79 pointing to this https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#c-Revolving_Doormat-20251206155900-Dan_Polansky-20251106181800 accidentially pointing at user:Dan Polansky

and the non existing accout Wikiversity:User:Revolving Doormat are acting as one unit.

This sock accusation is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:5P, I have to assume the Wikiversity has some corresponding policies. I have a thick enough skin; as a Wikipedia:NPP in STEM/Physics I have had people threaten to sue me etc, par for the course. However, accusations such as this towards a novice editor Wikipedia:User:Revolving Doormat who has been asking me for advice is not something I will accept.

N.B., I would have put in a "Global Admin Notice Board" report but I could not find a place for one. Ldm1954 (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

However, accusations such as this towards a novice editor Wikipedia:User:Revolving Doormat

So you send a novice editor to go after me? The sock accusation is very understandable.

I have a thick enough skin; as a Wikipedia:NPP in STEM/Physics I have had people threaten to sue me etc, par for the course.

Is that to lay out the ground?

Did I ever threatend you? Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

No one "sent me" to go after you. I am an astrophysicist and a mathematician. It just so happens my field is space and atmospheric physics and dynamical climate system modeling. Before I voted in the AfD on WP I wanted to see if there were other concerns cross-wiki, thus I found your WV article on chaos theory and found the same issues of concern from WP. There's no conspiracy against you, I just want there to be accurate information in educational material. As someone who is creating educational content, as is the purpose of WV, you should be doing the same. Instead, you are writing nonsense that creates work for other editors to fix. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support per nom. A cursory overview of a few of this user's articles reveals the same issues that were on WP, which he refused to address and instead became combative with other users, continuing with the same behavior. Separately, on WV, when much of his created content is coherent and supported by references, that content has been directly copy-and-pasted from WP, which is a copyright violation, and thus disallowed for legal reasons. There is such a massive amount of work to do here both to remove the copyrighted material and remove nonsensical or unverified material, the only possible conclusion is that this user must be stopped from creating excessive work for other editors to have to deal with. Revolving Doormat (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The account . ~2025-38873-79 pointing to this https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#c-Revolving_Doormat-20251206155900-Dan_Polansky-20251106181800 accidentially pointing at user:Dan Polansky and the non existing accout Wikiversity:User:Revolving Doormat are acting as one unit.

That is actually what is happening. It’s not me, but the link pointing to it. Looking at the history of both non-Wikiversity users, it seems they are a team. Just check their contributions history. The link is genuine; you can look it up. Harold Foppele (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have decided that I cannot ask professional physicists to repair pages on wikiversity, so I am withdrawing my block request. You can contact me on Wikipedia if you want to know more; I will not respond on wikiversity.