Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/16

Please unblock page or site
I am editing the page Toxins_as_PD_cause as part of a new project. Apparently the viartis.net site is blocked. This site often has some very useful information about Parkinson's disease research so do not understand why it is blocked. Anyway, the page we want to link to is: viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/Toxic.causes.of.Parkinsons.Disease.pdf and I hope you can at least unblock this. Thanks Droflet (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear Droflet, that site has been blacklisted globally, so you may like to ask your question on meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. Good luck. Mathonius (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure we can locally whitelist to override the global blacklist, but I'm not sure which page it is. --SB_Johnny talk 00:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried but was unsuccessful in adding either of
 * \viartis\.net
 * \viartis\.net\parkinsons.disease\Toxic.causes.of.Parkinsons.Disease.pdf
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and got the message: "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikiversity's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. If you feel the link is needed, you can: Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists by asking at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking for the page to be added to the whitelist at Wikiversity:Request custodian action. Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikiversity."
 * so perhaps Wikiversity custodians/bureaucrats don't have this permission? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can tell from the history of that page, Darklama and you have edited it before. The purpose of the whitelist page is precisely to override the global blacklist, so something has gone awry.
 * The global blacklist is at . If anyone is interested in the history of the global blacklisting, it's below, in collapse
 * Maybe someone has changed the MediaWiki settings here. If I had time, I'd go find out about it, but I don't. Good luck!
 * One more point: lenr-canr.org was delisted and does not need to be on the whitelist any more. Thanks to Darklama for whitelisting it when that was needed.
 * However, if anything on that page is still blacklisted, and if there is bug or improper setting, it will be impossible to edit the page to remove a listing, because of the other listings. This definitely needs to be fixed, and it's not about viartis. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-03 The train-wreck discussion incorrectly refers back to an old 2006 listing that shows no discussion or action. I found the log entry in the 2008 log, search the page for "viartis," and, from the log entry this appears to be an individual administrator decision. These were often made back then, and this administrator did that. There was apparently no original discussion. And I found that it was very common that once something was on the blacklist, one basically had to drop an anvil on the administrators' toes to get it changed. What had been done was presumed correct unless proven otherwise.
 * However, that's why we have a local whitelist, and the way to get something off the blacklist -- I proved this, it works -- is to establish a need for usage, either on Wikipedia or on other projects, through local whitelisting requests. Then, once there is some legitimate usage, a case can easily be made to remove from the global blacklist, and administrators will want to do this, because all the whitelist requests are a nuisance. I was able to get a number of abusively blacklisted sites off the list.
 * I have no opinion about viartis, but I've certainly seen the same kind of opposition to perfectly legitimate web sites, that should not even have been controversial. The "problem" being solved is massive addition of links, which is *presumed* to be "spamming." When I saw what had happened in one case, I literally cried. The guy was working hard to improve the projects, and every link added was appropriate, but the anti-spam warriors -- and they do think of themselves that way -- shoot first and ask questions later, or ask no questions at all, they just shoot. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That warning, James, indicates that you effectively attempted to place the URL itself on the whitelist page. What goes there is regex code. To whitelist the entire viartis site, you would add the same code as shown in the global blacklist log I pointed to:
 * \bviartis\.net\b
 * That should work. If needed here, we could change that to more specific regex, to just whitelist a specific page. It's probably not needed! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whitelist the site. That was already decided above but wasn't done for technical reasons. Any custodian can do this. There has been no objection. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please act on this request
It has been over six months since the original request. There has been no opinion expressed contrary to whitelisting. This should be routine, whitelisting requests should be granted immediately when an editor is apparently editing in good faith. So, would a custodian please whitelist? The necessary code to be added to the whitelist is given in the section above. This would allow editors here to freely use pages from that stie.

To be clear, global blacklisting is never an argument against whitelisting locally. As mentioned above, an option is to just whitelist the specific page, but I don't want to suggest regex code for that, and it is probably not necessary. If spam appears here, we can then modify the code. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all. It now works fine. Droflet (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Fix my rights
Hi. Today I've logged in after not using my account for a long time. I tried to upload a file but I was greeted with a page saying I haven't got the rights for that. I'd like to request "Confirmed User" status. I've read somewhere that my account needs to exist for more than four days. I mentioned I logged in after not using it for a long time, so obviously it means that this account existed for a long time; much longer than four days. - user:Soryy708 - July 11, 2013


 * I believe you need 10 edits also, possibly to wikiversity space. It looks like you have more than 10 edits total. - Sidelight12 Talk 11:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Please unprotect Talk:Wikipedia
History. ✅ by Sidelight12 --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see no justification in the history for this Talk page to be protected. The resource itself is unprotected. While Wikipedia as a topic can attract contentious editing, this does not appear to have been happening. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please check MediaWiki settings

 * This is a separate issue, not resolved by unprotecting that particular page:
 * When I added my name to the list of participants, I saw a misleading warning:
 * Note: You are viewing a resource that only registered participants can edit. Why should be explained below:
 * and then there was only the log entry for the protection with no explanation.


 * I don't understand why this message shows instead of MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext, which would have
 * This page is currently semi-protected and can be edited only by established registered users.
 * and then the advice would follow.


 * The existing displayed message is misleading: I actually almost gave up editing the page because of it, because I was signing up as a participant, and one signs up by editing the page. What the intention of the original message was is that "registered participant" referred to registered users, not resource participants. The only reason I continued was because I knew that, aside from the Edit Filter, there was no way in the MediaWiki software, on WMF sites, to limit edits to a list of users, aside from administrators or autoconfirmed users.
 * I do see what happened. See [], which was edited in 2012 to create this warning. There is something here I don't understand, but that's merely normal. The standard text would be:
 * Note: This page has been protected so that only registered users can edit it. The latest log entry is provided below for reference:


 * I've been a user here since roughly 2009 and I had only seen "participant" refer to people who signed up as participants in a particular resource. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Request withdrawn due to inaction. I'll bring it back if I have time, with a specific request. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

TAO - External Links
Would custodians please take a look at TAO in regard to the use of external links? I was just looking at random pages and came across this project. The project itself seems to be educational, but I'm concerned about links to the external web site, particularly the two entry points that lead to TAO/Contact us. I'm struggling with whether these external links are educational or just promotional. Thoughts? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your predicament here is that is their website educational? Or is it something else? --Aaqib talk 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Stuff like this is a headache trying to figure out. There's several organizations on Wikiversity, like Topic:LMCC that focuses on the organization, but that looks like it has some value. The content on TAO that seems educational looks more like bloat. No doubt it is promotional, but its hard to say if it is educational. A lot of what it could be doing for educational purposes on Wikiversity seems withheld. I know if it gets deleted, even if its a year later, someone will start throwing a fit. Of course the goal of this project is to make it look like other Wikiversity material. I don't care for it; I am between neutral and leaning towards it doesn't really belong here. The project just seems to be giving people the runaround. More opinions needed. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * But Topic:LMCC does not appear to have any external links to the organization itself. The only external link I found is to a Wikipedia article, and I only found that by looking at the category.  TAO/Contact us is much more 'blatant', if you will, and that page does not appear to add educational value to that project.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * LMCC is acceptable, and I mentioned its obvious value. I looked at TAO again. On page TAO/Handbook under activities it has case studies, which seem educational. Other pages from those contents, seem to have some value too. Ideally this should be trimmed or (subpages) moved to a non-organizational page, but that would take some effort. There is a lot of bloat, and too much emphasis on TAO as a promotional vehicle (it is [down someone's throat], as you said, blatant). (A situation like this was what I was thinking of when I suggested notability for organizations and people, but that's not necessary since educational or promotional value is enough to determine this.) What is important (obviously) is the educational content, not that TAO tries to constantly remind us that it hosts it (this should be trimmed). - Sidelight12 Talk 07:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * While I'm not a custodian, I took a look and read through some of what's here and off-site. It's vague and over-wordy, rather than educational. It's promotional only! And, it's only purpose is to encourage or help older persons to contribute to Wikipedia, NOT Wikiversity. From off-site, "The main target of our research and development project is to highlight the ways in which the access of older persons to the opportunities offered by online communities can be facilitated." Re-wording, "The main target of our research and development is to increase older persons' contributions to Wikipedia." Is this a research and development project for Wikiversity or Wikipedia? It's R&D using Wikiversity as a host that cannot be hosted on Wikipedia. If they do not clarlify this specifically, my suggestion is to put it up for deletion asking for this clarification. As R&D here this might be okay with simple direct clarity, better yet why not get older persons to contribute here instead, but my brain went numb trying to work this out of their pablum. Too much disguise! No clarity or honesty! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Perspective appreciated. I wanted to address the external links first.  Without the external links, I think the promotional aspects would be reduced.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no harm in this resource. I see that there have been numerous Wikiversity users involved, and it looks like WikiMedia Germany is involved. Notice TAO/Handbook/Contribute. Explicitly a Wikiversity project. There is a subpage structure that keeps things tidy, better than many projects! If there is some link or setup that is inappropriate, it can be edited by anyone, a custodian is not needed for that. I don't see a custodian action request here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so we are clear, there seem to be more than 140 pages involved in this resource. A *lot* of work has gone into it. The place to address content problems would be by direct editing, on an attached Talk page, or on the user page of an involved user. Not here, not without a specific action requested that requires custodian tools. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, a speedy delete of TAO/Contact us based on solicitation would require custodian tools, which is why I asked here. But I certainly appreciate your point that the links could be removed instead.  If this isn't the appropriate forum to seek custodian perspective, where should one post?  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to request speedy deletion, absent emergency. That's done by placing, on the page to be deleted, a template, . However, that would be a waste of time. This is a content issue, and the deletion reason is not something clearly prohibited, where the *whole page* needs deletion. So deletion would be controversial. A deletion discussion would be necessary, and I can again predict the outcome of that. Keep. We do not delete an entire family of resources based on a allegedly improper external link.
 * I didn't request speedy deletion. I asked a question.  One that no current (full) custodians responded to, and one that everyone else extended to the entire learning project, although I specifically asked about external links and titled the discussion to match.   -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Custodians have no special authority over content, and are empowered to speedy delete only on strong cause. Asking the opinion of custodians, then, is tempting them to give an opinion on a controversial issue, which could technically requiring them to abstain from action, unless there is no contrary opinion of substance. This would not be the place to find consensus, this is a place to *request custodian action.*
 * So, where to discuss the alleged problems? Aside from RFD, which would be a step of last resort, and which would need to consider the full page structure, there is what I mentioned above:
 * On an attached talk page, as Talk:TAO.
 * With an involved editor, say, one who added a problem link.
 * WV:Colloquium
 * I hope this is helpful. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the time you invested in responding. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One more point. I see that Dave is a probationary custodian. So there is another place to discuss issues if he wants the opinion of other custodians: Notices for custodians. It's specifically for that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I would move the whole thread, but I trust that, too, would be inappropriate.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Please close and archive. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked User:Fresh Whole Fuel
Not really a request for action, but I wanted to let you know I blocked this long-term vandal. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also User:Front of Mariner. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And another. I also created an edit filter, which you may disable. It will obviously only prevent certain types of edits, and the vandal could evade it. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I support PRS's action, the edits were highly disruptive. I cannot review the edit filter, those are only visible to custodians. However, this is Hunter Mariner spam, linking to [http://]www.youtube.com/watch?v=[deleted]. <-- (tested filter and blacklist. Globally blacklisting these spams on meta is superior to local filtering, I suggest, and will protect all the wikis instead of just this one. It has been blacklisted. So I presume the edit filter here can be deleted.
 * The test edit above with the full link in place was rejected by the spam blacklist. Then, when I disabled the link, it was rejected by the edit filter, which was obviously looking for the specific youtube link code, because this edit obviously then went through, and all this user does, mostly, is put up Hunter Mariner video links, plus abusive edit summaries. This may not be good practice, because the edit filter increases server burden, and there is no demonstrated benefit. This user will just create a new YouTube video or other such page, this has been going on for years. Please keep the Edit Filter to minimal usage. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That blocked user put something inappropriate in the history tags. Its not just about the youtube video that got that user blocked. - Sidelight12 Talk 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor did I say that it was only for the video, I mentioned the abusive edit summaries. Sidelight revision-deleted them, see Special:Contributions/Fresh Whole Fuel. The summaries were insults aimed at PiRSquared17, as I recall. Sometimes an abusive user will do that to attempt to create an impression of a conflict of interest block. PiRSquared properly ignored that, and did not use Revision Deletion. That was also proper. (Also it was very proper to bring this action here for custodian review.) The use of revision deletion in this case raises an issue I'm bringing up on the deletion policy talk page. It's not about that editor, who was clearly a long-term vandal. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The next time I see this I will add this to the global blacklist myself, but he could easily evade it (as you pointed out). Anyway, feel free to modify or delete the filter as you wish. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest removal of the edit filter, if it is only a filter against that specific page, and if it is not, it could be overbroad. The global blackllist handles that, and edit filters add to server load, because they must check every edit. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit filter looks fine, and should stay. For obvious reasons (to prevent someone from evading it) I'd rather not describe what it does. If someone encounters an error when trying to add to a legitimate page, they can ask for an exemption. Wikipedia:Don't_worry_about_performance applies to all Wikimedia Foundation hosted projects. We do what we need to do to prevent spam or vandalism, and let the gnomes who tweak the servers worry about performance. If there is an issue they will let us know. --mikeu talk 15:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Mike. The filter may be complex. It does block the spammed page, I verified that, but that URL is now also on the global blacklist, and this spammer, who has been active for years, simply sets up a different youtube video. It's possible that the filter has other target phrases, such as the N word. The link adds server load. Unnecessary parts of a filter should be avoided. That's all. Yes, someone could "evade" the global blacklist, but then it wouldn't be a link. Small point. We have very low edit filter usage, there will be no report from the gnomes at this level. If there ever is a report, though, someone will have to go through all the filters and decide which ones are necessary. Any part of this filter that isn't necessary should be eliminated now, when we know what is involved. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

essay spam from persistent IP
Special:Contributions/117.218.84.130 is putting up essay spam with persistent IP. Please block. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Special:Contributions/Louisgarcia723. These appear to be essay spam, but somewhat disguised as discussion, and they had escaped notice. I reverted all contributions and made a suggestion on the User talk page. If this SPA continues to put up apparent spam without discussion and agreement, please block. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This user has also placed the same content on Wikibooks: . --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Appears to be the same user. Will add to my watch list. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Script error
Mr. Stradivarius has been converting various high-use templates over from template code to Lua code. However, the dependent Lua modules are not being copied with it. What's interesting is that he made his changes on on October 20, and I didn't notice the script error warnings until this weekend. So I'm not exactly sure what's causing it. It almost seems like there's module code that should be importing from Commons, and it works for awhile and then stops. I tried importing the supporting modules from Wikipedia, but there is an error in Module:Category handler that is preventing the Lua code from working. I rolled back the change to Template: Ombox for now, and that fixed one problem I was having, but there are still script errors appearing because of the Module:Category handler problem. Does anyone know who to follow up with on this? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a problem with this script error too, that started this weekend. I hope I didn't import anything that caused this. - Sidelight12 Talk 13:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

copied to Notices for custodians
 * @Sidelight12: yes, it was the modules that you imported that caused the script errors. This edit is the first that I've made to Wikiversity - all the others have been imported from enwiki by someone else. Give me a second and I'll work out which modules need to be updated to fix the problem. Mr. Stradivarius (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like you need to update Module:Category handler, Module:Namespace detect and Module:HtmlBuilder. Once you've imported those three, everything should work. If not, leave me a message at w:User talk:Mr. Stradivarius and I'll take another look. And Dave Braunschweig, after that is done you might want to reinstate the Lua versions of Template:Ombox etc., as they will give better performance and reduce code redundancy. Best - Mr. Stradivarius (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ - It looks like the problem is resolved. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please fix botched page move
User:Guy vandegrift incorrectly moved a user page to mainspace under his user name. He has a set of resources, the moved pagename and subpages, to be moved to mainspace, but that move should await a clear decision as to the mainspace structure, I'm discussing it with him on his talk page. Meanwhile, I did copy his content back to the redirect page created, but that is unsatisfactory. Please
 * Delete the redirect page User:Guy vandegrift/Physics equations II
 * Move Guy vandegrift/Physics equations II back to User:Guy vandegrift/Physics equations II. Leave no redirect.

I have requested this be done because simply editing the present redirect page loses the page history. When the page structure is settled, we will request a page move with subpages included to mainspace. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And I (--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)) would like the name changed to "Physics equations" (no Roman Numerals). Please put it in permanent location (I think you call it mainspace?) This will be my only project for a long time. -guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guy, please complete the discussion of this on your Talk page. While you may be clear, we should all be clear before more work is put into this. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ See Physics equations. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick work. However, since Guy and I were in the middle of discussing the best move target name, and I mentioned that, Guy's request was premature. (I think you didn't see my request, you were already working on the move.) Guy is new, and is not accustomed to collaboration on a wiki. It can sit as-is for the time being, no big harm done, but when more than one user is involved in some way, and they are engaged in discussion of what to do, it may be best to wait a little. In this case, if a different target name is determined, it should be possible to move again without creating redirects. This is a relatively small page structure. I once did a premature move including subpages and it took hours to clean up.... --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was already done before I knew it was still in discussion. I now have a growing toolbox of Bot functions at MediaWiki API/PowerShell, so I'm less afraid of large scale cleanup.  Perhaps less afraid than I should be.  :-)  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Got it. Major missing function: move undo. Restores to status quo ante. I think this is because the actions are all separately recorded. The real issue here is lack of a coherent structure for Wikiversity; there is, instead, an irregular amalgam of different structures, so nobody really has guidance about what to do, and we end up with a mess. A "coherent structure" could have alternatives, it doesn't need to be just one structure, but ... we don't appear to have faced this, we kept hoping that structure would create itself. And if we do decide on structure, we then have an enormous body of exceptions. Ick. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of lower resolution image
Hi!

File:SSV2Foto.jpg is a lower resolution duplicate of File:Foto2SSV.jpg and may be speedy deleted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ If you'd like, in the future you can just edit the file itself and add the and it will show up in the speedy deletion category. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Navigation and Archive box Templates Broken
See Help_desk. Has anyone been changing templates or styles? I think it's something very recent, in the past day or two. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like MediaWiki:Common.css/Messages.css is no longer being included in page delivery. The styles are still in the templates and the styles are in the CSS, but the CSS page is not included with page content.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This problem is now resolved, but requires clearing the local browser cache to see the difference. Whatever caused this was system-related, because I was impacted on two completely different computers, one Mac and one PC, at separate geographic locations.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

print pdf problem
Hello I see that the print pdf tool can not create the pages properly. For example

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Fluid_Mechanics_for_MAP/Fluid_Dynamics

in the above page the headers do nto apear properly.

Moreover, it tries to make 2 column pages. One year ago it was only one column.

How can I solve the problem?

Best

Özgür


 * You can use Special:Book to control the number of columns and paper size for your PDF. Regarding headings, I suspect it is a result of conflicts with the formula rendering.  I don't see heading problems in other saved book collections.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Sidelight12
User:Sidelight12 (talk) (contributions) was a probationary custodian. As a consequence of wheel-warring with a permanent custodian, Dave Braunschweig, Sidelight12 was desysopped, and this removal of rights was confirmed by Sidelight12's mentor, the bureaucrat Jtneill, October 17, 2014.

If Jtneill had seen the removal as inappropriate, he could have immediately undone it, as a bureaucrat, or, if he wished to be more careful, he could have requested community approval or rejection of restoral.

Sidelight did not continue any further disruptive activity, nor did the user continue to contribute to Wikiversity in any way, until extending his complaint about Dave -- and me --, November 9, repeated on WV:Notices for custodians and WV:Custodian feedback.

The topic had previously been raised on the Notices page because Dave had blocked Sidelight12, while involved, and such an action should always be brought immediately to the custodial community for review. I would have suggested this RCA page instead, because it would be an immediate request for action (i.e., review), but the Notices page was reasonable to use. All custodians should be watching all three pages, but reports and requests should not be duplicated across these pages.

Dave archived the rest of the discussion on that page, and, it appears may have inadvertently archived a snippet of new discussion.

Because this entire discussion was now outside of the function of the Notices page, I verified that what was left by Dave was redundant to the complaint on the Feedback page, and then removed it.
 * 22:04, 9 November 2014 (→‎Dave Braunschweig's inappropriate behavior: rm duplicate post on Custodian Feedback, which would be the appropriate page anyway, this not being a Notice for Custodians.)

There are strong reasons for preventing the same discussion from taking place in more than one venue.

Sidelight12 reverted both the archiving and my removal.
 * 23:51, 10 November 2014 m (Undo revision 1268427 by Abd (talk) This is the appropriate place for it. Stop trying to hide it. Not a duplicate post. and it belongs where it is.)
 * 02:09, 11 November 2014(Undo revision 1268306 by Dave Braunschweig (talk) revert attempt to hide last comment.)

Setting aside the possibly accidental removal of that snippet added to an old discussion, this diff compares the new content on the Notices page with the new content on Custodian feedback. The only difference I see is formatting and a new signature.

Sidelight is arguing tendentiously, and revert warring, over matters that are resolved. This is disruptive. The complaint on Custodian Feedback is procedurally allowed, but such complaints may also result in sanctions if continued with repetitious or uncivil argument. Sidelights arguments are both.

I cannot warn Sidelight12 of this request for action directly, because of restrictions the user has declared on his User talk page. However, Sidelight will undoubtedly see this, and this will be linked from the Notices page or the attached Talk page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested action
Please warn Sidelight12 about incivility and disruptive behavior. If the warning is disregarded, please block as appropriate. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting warned for posting about someone's inappropriate behavior? I wasn't necessarily seeking an RCA, that was a notice. This is nothing but hushing. I haven't revert warred. I reverted once, because I had posted 6 hours before it was archived, and you tried to hide other stuff. You are abusing this page. Your actions right now are corrupt and abusive. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "There are strong reasons for preventing the same discussion from taking place in more than one venue." Then why did you drag it out across many venues? - Sidelight12 Talk 21:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the absence of an emergency, and there is no emergency yet, Sidelight will be warned about behavior recognized or interpreted as disruptive, by a neutral warning custodian, or it is possible that I will be warned (or both). I have, not, however, "dragged it across many venues," and wild, unsubstantiated charges like this are part of the problem here. There is a progression in wiki dispute resolution, and it involves escalation when a problem cannot be resolved at the lower levels. Pages have specific purposes, and I have respected those purposes. This is the first time I have requested custodian action regarding this user. Hopefully, the matter will end here. If not, then there is one more formal escalation available on Wikiversity. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

abd
Please take action against abd without prejudice, he promotes turmoil at Wikiversity. He is continually abusive, he twists logic and cherrypicks which rules are to be followed when it benefits him. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've posted about this in the past, and it is still relevant here. 

He asks to get me blocked, when I posted something that he tried to hide, that was hidden less than 6 hours later. I haven't revert warred, on Wikipedia the revert rule is 3rrr, and I had a reason to revert with the edit summary, thus avoiding a revert war. Corrupt behavior. Please, an uninvolved admin block abd without prejudice. The evidence presented to Snowolf by Abd was one sided, as he missed where Dave abused blocks and unblocked himself, above he mentioned where he missed this action. Abd painted the story to make it look like only I was responsible for the problem at meta, when, however Dave is faulty in his behavior. It was critical for Snowolf to get the blocks right, but he or she can't really be blamed as he only acted on the evidence presented when it was ongoing. I stuck by my actions because I knew that leucostite couldn't help it with dangerous behavior, and in fact he ran straight to wikibooks with that behavior after promising to stop. Dave and Abd thought they could renegotiate the block on their own terms, when I had the reason in the summary. There is no community here, there is no blocking policy, and when I asked for help on my page from abd's past abuse the people I asked for comment didn't comment. Abd also cherrypicked which rules to follow for his benefit. VASTLY corrupt behavior by abd, an uninvolved admin from abd please ban him without prejudice. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One can see how Sidelight12 is incautious about the accusations he makes. I have not requested that he be blocked. "Revert warring," if one reads the Wikipedia policies that he refers to, begins with repeated assertion of the same content (or removal of the same content). Revert warring itself is not necessarily improper, but is discouraged. The WP:3RR rule is a "bright line." Sidelight never bothered to understand Wikiversity traditions and policies (we have defacto policies that have been through a bit of weird history), and, here, the biggest blooper, besides blatant incivility, is that Sidelight12 adminstrators have the power to ban. He saw me use "without prejudice" on meta with regard to his sysop removal, so he uses it here, where it is practically meaningless and contradictory. One does not ever ban "without prejudice."
 * One of the surest ways to a ban, though, is continual complaint about past "wrongs." It is wiki-suicide. Sidelight12 is now on Wikiversity only for complaint and retribution, see the contributions. That never works out well. Nobody has been harassing him. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * More wiki-lawyering. "Please warn Sidelight12 about incivility and disruptive behavior. If the warning is disregarded, please block as appropriate" That is suggesting, (or a sneaky was of ordering) someone to warn me for posting about your behavior, then a suggestion to block me. Wiki-lawyering, wikilawyering. Wikiversity lacks rules, every time rules try to be made, you always have made sure no rules would stay. I was making an example of your use of the phrase 'without prejudice'. I hope someone else sees through how your last argument makes absolutely no sense, as I've pointed out why. I also figured you'd say oh Wikibooks allows it, so its fair to post that garbage there. This is absolutely stupid how you use logical loopholes through language, and keep arguing against what's obvious. I have a perfectly valid reason to post this here, and you wish for someone to warn me and have them threaten a block to silence me. In fact I've had objections to YOUR inappropriate behavior for a quite while. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding: if there was revert warring, you're just or more-so guilty of that. My only purpose for reverting, was for my comments to stay, not for them to be hidden. And a revert with a good explanation in the summary is allowed, if not overdone, which I haven't overdone. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Saying I'm only here for retribution is libelous. In fact, I do not like this toxic place. Whatever you want to call wiki-badgering and pushing when he is wrong, that's what abd does. This is Abd's behavior from Wikipedia that still continues here, and much of it is a perfect description of his behavior. As long as Abd stays on Wikiversity, along with his enablers this place will be a dump, a place not worth contributing to. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious conflict of interest. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

leucosticte

 * The revision of the deleted dangerous page seems to be hidden, but the discussion is apparent . I've tried to block his email access.
 * Unblock request by leucosticte, October 16, 2014
 * Leucosticte's wikibooks edits on Suicide and bleach, October 19, 2014. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Rough consensus has been to allow discussion on the matter in question. Our consensus, so far, is to not allow this content on Wikiversity without having ethical guidelines in place. The creation of the content originally violated no stated Wikiversity policy, and the user himself brought it to my attention, and I tagged it for speedy deletion as a result. Leucosticte is a cooperative user, even if he has some wild opinions.
 * The email access block attempt was due to ignorance about the block tool, was contrary to policy, and is completely irrelevant here. Sidelight12 is no longer a probationary custodian, and what Sidelight12 attempted to do is moot.
 * What the user does on Wikibooks or any other WMF wiki is irrelevant to Wikiversity participation, our precedents are clear on that However, Wikibooks has considered the issue of book content on suicide methods, several times, and consensus was to allow it. This appears to also be the Wikipedia position. Meanwhile, this section on Leucosticte does not request action, and detailing the activities of users on other WMF wikis can be considered a privacy policy violation (subject to details and necessity). Leucosticte is definitely not being disruptive here. Accordingly,
 * I request speedy close of this specific request. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Except Wikiversity and Wikibooks are how-to, while Wikipedia describes. There is no privacy violation here, that is a misleading claim, it's all Wikimedia projects. - Sidelight12 Talk 06:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)