Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/17

‎96.238.138.72
Will someone please block for vandalism? Tiptoety talk 19:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Tegel --Goldenburg111 20:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Requested global block, this IP vandalized six WMF wikis in the last week, many edits, no legitimate edits on the IP. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please undo a move to School:Global Diaspora Studies
This page is probably inappropriately placed, according to what I think the WV:Curriculum committee will come up with, but I thought the name was mispelled, and moved it. I was apparently wrong, I discovered too late, there is a word "glocal." It means, apparently, "global and local," or something like that, please don't ask me how it's different from "everything," i.e., the same effect as if the word wasn't there at all. But this move should be undone, pending review. The attached talk page I created can be moved to talk for the original page as part of the same action. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Sidelight12 Talk 05:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Request protection to be lifted, and unblock too
I would like User:Yingshong's userpage, and User:Hommbo's userpage to be unprotected, I think everybody here knew (birthday is at May 17) that Abd was blocked, so I had no mentor, and I was only nine years old, I did not know my way around. The blocking custodian is inactive, as any other custodian will be, so I believe it is useless to keep these "sockpuppets" around. Thank you for your consideration. I also would like Yingshong and Hommbo unblocked so my little brother can start editing, I would also like to move the "sockpuppet" tag, as it is very annoying. Thank you very much. --Goldenburg111 01:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a lot tied up in this seemingly simple request. I personally need to separate the issues:
 * Abd was blocked, but that has nothing to do with the request. Abd could get blocked again.  Your request has to be measured on its own merits.  The alternative would be to suggest that you don't know how to behave without Abd looking over your shoulder, and that's not a position that is likely to gain approval.
 * Likewise, your age has nothing to do with the request. It is the behavior that is the issue.  You could be 9, 19, or 99.  We need to focus on the behavior that led to the block and assurances that it won't be repeated.
 * The blocking custodian is occasionally active. You should try following up with him first before filing an open request.
 * The assumption that all other custodians are also inactive is incorrect. Some are active.  They don't often use their custodial rights, but they are here.
 * You state that it is useless to keep these sockpuppets around, but also that you want your little brother to use the accounts. Those to me seem to be conflicting objectives.  Perhaps what you are suggesting is that it is useless to keep the sockpuppet labels around.  But they serve an important historical purpose, and keep the accounts from being reused as you are currently requesting.
 * The sockpuppet tag would only be annoying to anyone looking at the accounts and wanting to use them. You don't need these accounts, as you already have your own account.
 * I'm not sure starting your little brother off by using a known sockpuppet account is the best way to go. If that's really where he wants to go, a better approach might be for him to appeal the block of his user account that his older brother misused.  Whether or not he would be able to convince someone that he isn't a sockpuppet or a meat puppet remains to be seen, but that's his issue, not yours.
 * The issue for you to address is this. Why do you want these known sockpuppet users unblocked, since you can't use them, and why do you want the sockpuppet label removed, since it is accurate?  Don't speak for your brother.  Speak for yourself.  How does your request help you, Goldenburg111, and your activities here at Wikiversity?  And how will approval of the request help Wikiversity?
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Somewhere Goldenburg made a list of accounts he had used. Here he is claiming, effectively, that these were relatives. If that is so, they were not "sock puppets," but we might call them "meat puppets," a quite offensive word, actually, covering an issue which I've never seen cleanly addressed. If two family members, or people who live together, both edit a project, is this some kind of offense? Are there any guidelines to cover this?
 * What I propose is disclosure, before there is an issue. I am considering encouraging my daughter to edit Wikiversity. Somewhere it should be disclosed, because if we are ever checkusered, coincident IP -- same wireless router --, and sometimes coincident user agent, would be found. Would she be allowed to comment in any process where I am involved? (My answer: yes, with disclosure of the relationship.)
 * However, Goldenburg is asking for something else. Really, if his little brother wants to edit here, that little brother will need some kind of mentorship. He can do it. The relationship should be disclosed. And it should not be one of those old accounts, unless there is some critical interest in those names for some reason I don't anticipate. Let the old names go. We don't really care if those old accounts were him or a relative or someone else. There simply was not invested in those accounts to be worth worrying about.
 * The sock notice on User:Yingshong and User:Hommbo is inaccurate, though. ("sock puppet of Draubb") The block log for Yingshong reads "sockpuppet/meatpuppet for Draubb," and the evidence was behavioral. (But RfCU would likely have come up with the same thing).
 * Technically, to be unblocked, Yingshong or Hommbo would request unblock again. Talk page access is still open. However, it is far, far simpler to for someone who is not Draubb to create a new account, to disclose any relationship that might cause a problem in the future, and move on without requiring administrative fuss. For Drackalarimo and Hommbo, Goldenburg removed the sock template. I reverted those removals, but we can consider replacing them with something. Or totally resolving the whole thing.
 * Goldenburg, you may have more than one account, if they are disclosed. I have more than one. (I did not use it while blocked; I'd have used in in an emergency, perhaps, but normally using an alternate account while blocked is block evasion.) If you have other accounts you wish to disclose, you may do so, and they can be unblocked, generally. They were only blocked because of appearances created back at that time. You are not blocked. Drackalarimo might remain blocked, because of the similarity of that name to Darklama. Bad Idea, eh?
 * Let sleeping dogs lie, is the old saying. However, if you want to totally clean this up, Goldenburg, it can be done. Generally, however, I agree with David. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Both users immediately identified themselves as friends of Draubb. It looks like they got blocked because they voted and commented for Draubb as their only few edits. Its possible to let them edit, with restrictions that they can't vote together (they can comment together, but not vote); disclosure, as they've already done, is also a must. I gather that Draubb (Goldenburg), Yingshong, and Hommbo are from the same town. There is no way to confirm whether they are brothers, or friends, but this part is irrelevant. It doesn't seem possible for either of them to appeal on their own, because there is no option to allow them to edit their talkpage. In some situations, I worry if an unblock could cause problems I couldn't control anymore. I think I could unblock these two people, and be able to control the situation, but I won't since it could make the admin who blocked them upset. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that all three accounts are CU confirmed, see Candidates for Custodianship/Draubb. --Rschen7754 07:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CU confirmation was redundant. The accounts disclosed relationship with Draubb initially. They were likely editing from the same house, even the same computer. Sidelight, we can handle the blocking admin, I'm sure the user will not object if we agree on what to do. I do not suggest that Darklama be pinged yet, but, of course, that would be done. I suggest that Goldenburg reflect on this a bit, consult with his friends or family, and then discuss what he needs, but not here until he has a supported plan. The protection of the wiki can be fully maintained. I have seen very disruptive sock accounts on Wikipedia hidden, user pages deleted, on request, history has even been concealed. I'm not proposing that we go that far. It damages transparency.
 * As wikis go, this was only last year. In the life of the particular user, this was ancient history. Be patient, Goldenburg. "... and the reward of patience is patience." --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You claimed that you got over your problems of sockpuppetry and immaturity, yet this clearly shows you have not, for you do not understand that you may not continue using multiple accounts here under w:en:WP:BROTHER arguments.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * fyi: I'm not siding against anybody. Goldenburg needs to mature. If those are really his brothers, they can edit from one account, so long as all of them realize they are collectively responsible if it gets blocked. I am capable of watching over it, but I can't be responsible for it every second 24/7. The blocking admin has reasons for the block, and I won't beg the question. Goldenburg, don't ask for a while.- Sidelight12 Talk 21:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Legally, people may not share one account. This is because of the attribution requirements of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks Sidelight, I'll let this drop. Response for Jasper Deng: You are the most annoying and worst people I have ever encountered. I am really annoyed by you repeatedly trolling me. --Goldenburg111 21:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Jasper, please stop it. Young users do not "get over" being immature, rather they learn and mature, and it's a slow process, it may go forward and backward. We may have --and use -- multiple accounts here, first of all. It's how they are used that matters. Brothers may have accounts, and domestic partners and housemates, and that's true even on Wikipedia, much more so here. Nothing is going to be proposed here that will violate policy. Goldenburg is not going to use multiple accounts unless they are disclosed. Brothers who share computers, perhaps, or maybe just internet access, may also use accounts and I'm strongly recommending that these relationships be openly disclosed. Then we can simply look at behavior and address problems without calling in checkuser.
 * Sidelight, Jasper is correct on the point, though he's not totally correct legally. We highly recommend against allowing more than one person to edit with a single account. No, sharing a computer and IP access is okay if disclosed. Sharing an account is not. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think its a legal problem. If a party uses one account, the restriction I see is all parties with the account get equal credit for the work, where one person of the group can't claim more than a share of the edits. Another problem is if one person gets blocked, everyone else gets blocked, even if they were not fully aware of the previous account actions before it was too late. These two problems aside, I don't see why it isn't allowed. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't appear to have a policy regarding multiple users on a single account, but Wikipedia does. Since they would be the same account both here and there, we should not encourage activity here that would result in problems on a sister project using the same resource.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's the same issue as giving someone your account password, who then uses it. No good reason for it. Easy to have a separate account for separate persons. It's not that it is not allowed on Wikipedia, the policy Dave pointed to is over user names that imply role accounts. A role account is the same issue, though. No clear personal responsibility. I'm sure it's done not infrequently. It's just a Bad Idea. There is no problem with anyone and his brother having two accounts. They should simply disclose the relationship so that there won't be an unpleasant checkuser surprise, and then be careful about commenting where it could create an appearance of sock or meat puppetry.


 * Goldenburg has withdrawn this request, it should be closed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 06:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing talk page after request not to edit
This could get complicated, but I'll keep it simple. February 5, I requested and warned TeleComNasSprVen (talk) not to edit my user talk page, because these edits have proven to be disruptive and a waste of time. Warning and explanation.

February 5, the user edited my talk page., with no necessity. Activity on his Talk page, where he has, as on other wikis, altered my comments, had already been resolved by agreement, when I blanked the sections, as he permitted. (And he has never requested that I not edit his Talk page.)

This user has already been warned by a custodian, see the "warning and explanation" above, the last two items.

Please confirm the warning or otherwise act to prevent future disruption. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User notified of this request --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So noted. I would also note that you each have valuable perspective and skills in what you bring to Wikiversity.  I recommend that you each avoid posting or altering the other's user pages, and instead involve a custodian if future situations would warrant such a response.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to do that, Dave, since you request it. Notice that a custodian already warned him, however, about his edits to my Talk page. I have agreed that TCNSV can do valuable work. The problem is that he also does damage. He has done little damage here, so far, though he did in the past. This is really a head's up. I will now come here if I see a problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been nothing overtly "destructive" towards this wiki yet besides this inane continuation of the feud between us. I find it hypocritical why I am disallowed to post warnings on his talkpage while he is free to post them on mine. I've largely tried to respect him by leaving him alone ever since he left Meta Wiki over the affair, but when he started this one-way form of communication where he continually harasses me with warnings, it becomes intolerable. Per this incident, he knows that spamming me with warnings using inflammatory language was annoying me, a way to get under my skin, and plain obvious harassment. Yet he insists on continuing to harass me against commons sense and decency and what any site policy would prohibit unless I comply with his demands; that is, explicitly tell him not to post to my talkpage. Any decent normal human being or other Wikiversity user would have dropped the matter by now and focus on doing something more constructive. At Wikibooks he posts yet another warning to my talkpage, this time stating his intent to bring crosswiki disputes with me wherever I go, and to continue to "monitor" (read: stalk) my contributions. This all seems to be stem from some retaliatory grudge he developed against me back in 2011, for which he persists in maintaining. In the past on Wikiversity, he has had a highly unusual fixation with others, as evidenced by User:Abd/Community Review/TeleComNasSprVen, and in the final incidents he had with me before I left the project: 1, 2. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Reminder to Abd: The original granting of your unblock was on the condition that you refrain from participating in "Wikiversity governance and general maintenance" and further stirring up dramafests like this one. You have again exceeded the bounds of your unblock conditions and chose to disrupt this page on a spurious personal incident rather than focusing on improving current and existing Wikiversity learning resources. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 17:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It's clear from my perspective that you both have been (intentionally or unintentionally) pushing the other's buttons with inflammatory posts and edits. You've now both publicly presented your positions. Please go find something else to do that makes Wikiversity a better place for all of us. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not again edit his Talk page; however, his practice of altering the comments of others is inimical not only to wiki traditions, but also to academic custom, and that's a basic issue here. It appears personal, and that's his intention, it's obvious. I did bring this to custodial attention, the issue of editing my talk page being only the tip of the iceberg, the simplest thing to point out. Thanks for paying attention. Let's hope that as a result of this attention, he alters his behavior. It has not been as problematic here as elsewhere. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TCNSV raises a series of irrelevant issues as counterattack. I see that he found an old draft CR, from 20 April, 2011. I never filed that and I had forgotten about it. On three occasions, I drafted Community Reviews for users because I saw problems developing. One was never filed because the user was -- and remains -- indef blocked. Very complicated situation, this was one of the founders of Wikiversity. The next was used as a framework for a CR that led to the desysop of the subject custodian. And the next was for TCNSV. It was not filed because, except for a single edit 30 April, he stopped editing on April 23, and did not return until December 31, 2013, to raise issues with me about meta (where he was grossly disruptive).
 * We do not need to review the old behavior at this time, and certainly not meta behavior. I request that custodians monitor current behavior, here. I am no longer subject to an agreement not to be involved with "governance and general maintenance," and notified Jtneill about that. However, Jtneill may reimpose such a condition, should he see fit, and I would respect it, absent community permission.
 * I am here (1) to develop certain educational resources, (2) to foster and encourage the development of Wikiversity, and (3) to make and maintain this as a safe place for users to develop educational resources and to learn. There are users who show up here from time to time, and one who was a custodian in the past, who have made it dangerous, biting newcomers, being more concerned with excluding users they don't like, and deleting content, than with creating content, encouraging cooperation, and organizing Wikiversity. I have always stood against this, while respecting whatever legitimate purposes are behind such attacks. (I.e., for example, if a user is allegedly violating copyright, I will act to ensure that there is no copyright violation, by encouraging the user to refrain from creating cause for concern, pending discussion, etc., and I've been quite effective in this.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Continued actions requiring attention

 * This user continues to be active with edits that are provocative or misleading.
 * Most serious: Today making many edits to user talk pages re file licensing that use text copied from Commons that may not apply here, thus confusing users, as these are not Commons files. 1 2 3 and 14 more today.
 * Deleted other's comments from another user's talk page, revert warred over it, citing "evidence in private" -- highly misleading, it turns out, and "do not interfere" -- instead of attempting comprome. Original, revert and easy compromise. The user is aware of customs about Talk page editing (having 66,000 edits globally). The compromise was not easy until I researched the user more deeply, see the compromise comment. Before that, I was asking (off-wiki) for Revision Deletion. So the most serious issue here is the claim of "private evidence." Had that been the basis, the need for revision deletion would have remained. The link is useful and allowed, given the public evidence, but the blanking is still not. The user may handle his own page.
 * After the above was written, he reverted, with if you wish to contest this action please raise it with administrators or diego by email. Of course
 * I already raised it with administrators, here.
 * He's removing my new comment and he's neither Diego Grez nor Küñall.
 * He knows there is no email for Diego Grez.
 * I already notified Küñall on Commons. TCNSV removed the link to that. If someone wants to notify Küñall on en.wikipedia, that would be fine; I can't do that.
 * He attempted to stir up controversy over a resource edit, where I had already notified the original author. reversion of change without discussion (claims mainspace resource ownership), and First edit to user talk page with reference to "personal attack," and Second edit argued tendentiously and uselessly, see the discussion for details.
 * Harassment. I was notified by ordinary watchlist email of several of the license notices, as I had edited those talk pages, and the same with the user talk page that was blanked. TCNSV had never edited the Salticid page, so he saw that from a review of my contributions or from Recent Changes. He's looking for trouble, and is unrestrained. He should not be sanctioned here for activity on Beta, but I have an open custodian request there, to give an idea of his general behavior. Of particular interest would be how he handled a speedy deletion tag there, revert-warring over it. He has behaved similarly on Wikiversity in the past, and a Community Review may become necessary, if he does not stop. (He previously retired when he saw the train coming down the track.)
 * Because of prior events and behavior, see the first part of this request, I cannot ask him to stop posting the misleading comments, hence I was forced to come here or tolerate mass confusion of our users.


 * Constructive possibility: work on better local user image notice templates, with more specific instructions for specific situations, get consensus for those and for how they are used. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that, ironically, it was the stress of dealing with the drama on Wikiversity caused by Abd et al, as it is continued in this thread now, that managed to cause Diego Grez to retire. For reference, see his final comments 1, 2, 3, 4. They speak more about this issue than I ever could really. I wonder how many editors have been driven away by the sheer stress of dealing with some of the drama around here? That should be the subject of the next Wikiversity study!~ TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, subject to some of the abuse of provocative and incivil warnings Abd has issued to numerous other users, including him and I, this becomes the appropriate response. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hooray! A perfect example of creating Wikidrama over even a simple matter. I have to commend Abd, he's been doing this for the past 3+ years on Wikiversity, opening up spurious threads against Ottava Rima, I or anyone else he disagrees with, and then reverting any action he doesn't like, while pretending it's not a personal matter. And he seems to be improving at it, like some sort of game. Pretty soon though, he'll get bored and go back to working on his Cold Fusion topics, at least I hope so. And then we can finally lay this thread to rest. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with above) Some friend TCNSV is (He's not. See below, his edits to Diego Grez talk were probably hostile). That "appropriate response" got Diego Grez promptly blocked. Diego Grez basically abandoned Wikiversity when his permanent custodian vote was rejected -- because of canvassed votes, by the way, the whole thing stank.


 * Of course TCNSV thinks it was appropriate, it is how he feels when anyone warns him about the disruption he routinely causes. However, was the warning I'd given a proper warning? Was, indeed, it uncivil? Diego was (more mildly) uncivil in the edit I warned him about, which was ironically about removing comments from other people's talk pages. I don't want to re-examine all this. Diego was young -- is still quite young -- and can move on. If there is a problem with my overall behavior, there is WV:Community review, and that cuts both ways.


 * There is only one editor here having any visible "stress" over my work, and he brings it on himself, again and again. If there are others, it's not showing. And this is irrelevant here. I brought certain behavior here for examination. If I become the subject, the purpose of this page is lost. If what I have reported is acceptable behavior, I hope that one or more custodians will say so. If not, I hope that the user will be warned and/or blocked, since he has already been warned and has blown it off.


 * I now have an email from Diego. From his IP edit I'd already seen, I announced my intention to blank his talk page. TCNSV blanked it, though not without first claiming, deceptively, that "the last edit before blanking was highly offensive and contains a block message for you."


 * Diego wrote: "I have not, in fact given that guy any kind of permission to edit my user page in any way." ..." I'd rather prefer to not have my pages linked to Wikipedia on Wikiversity"
 * So my worry could be justified, i.e., that this was a hostile edit. It certainly wasn't from a user request. TCNSV was increasing visibility for someone who is apparently withdrawing overall. Diego wrote: "Thank you for letting me know this, I would have not known it if it wasn't for your email."
 * Let me make this clear. If I had not confronted that talk page edit, Diego would not have known about it and may not have seen it for a long time, if ever. He doesn't have email set up and is inactive on WMF wikis. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What work, Abd? Opening up numerous complaint threads about people you don't like, rather than creating legitimate learning resources? Harvesting diffs to block people? Your long-winded block log shows the strain and stress others feel when pushed to the limits of their patience in dealing with you. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction: One thread and one person. This one and this one. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction: numerous complaints throughout the history of his time spent disrupting Wikiversity's image through drama-mongering, on this very page. For reference:
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8, JWS was a previous community member who came under attack
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8
 * Request custodian action/Archive/8
 * And that's only from July 2010 - August 2010. You can review the rest of Request custodian action/Archive for the threads Abd is involved in, and the frequent frustration of both custodians and the community on his drama threads. There will be a time someday soon when he'll open yet another community review against established one of you custodians here as well. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To Jtneill, the administrator who oversaw Abd's unblock request:

Upon review of Abd's block log again, I have noted that previously Abd had requested permission to continue editing here at Wikiversity, on condition that he will do his best "not to become involved in Wikiversity governance and general maintenance". Do you think he currently is too much involved in "Wikiversity governance and general maintenance" and that he is exceeding the terms of the original unblock request? Do you think he should be allowed to participate in such community matters? Or should be restricted to working on the Cold Fusion topics that he promised to improve here on Wikiversity, and refrain from creating more drama on these noticeboards in the future? He has stated "will work only on educational resources of interest to me and value to users". Do you think it is within the scope of his work on "educational resources of interest" to him that he should be allowed to pursue custodial action against another user? TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Telecom
([ link to unblock discussion --[[User:Abd|Abd]] (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC))
 * Hello Wikiversity Community, its nice to see you after three months of inactivity. I would like to say that Telecom's indefinite block is not absolutely inappropriate, but somewhat inappropriate. I don't believe Telecom should get an indefinite, rather a six month would fit fine.
 * Now looking at the above section, I see Telecom has been accused of harassing User:Abd, am I right? And revealing personal info at User talk:Diego Grez.
 * I would like to see links of the harassment by Telecom. If you will.
 * And here, I am bringing my cross-wiki experience into this...
 * Well, I would normally expect a six or year block here, but I see no reason for an indefinite. Telecom is a pretty useful user, who has sysop rights on 1 wiki. Telecom was blocked for 3 months for harassment. Now, that's what I would usually expect. [If this makes no sense, don't reply]. --Goldenburg111 00:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are several definitions for indefinite. The most obvious is simply 'not defined'.  A period of time is appropriate when a period of time would change the situation.  An undefined period of time is appropriate when something besides time must occur first.  We're working on that, and your jumping into the discussion without the necessary information, and without an account that would allow you to see that information, isn't helpful.  In this case, I must ask that you give custodians the opportunity to do what they are entrusted to do.  Wait and see what happens, and if you disagree with the outcome, then feel free to share your perspective.  Thanks!  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The user has not been banned. I did not initiate a ban discussion, which could only, by tradition here, happen with a Community Review. My hope is that the user will be able to provide adequate assurances that problem behavior will not continue.
 * From his Talk page comments so far, I'm not sure that he yet understands the nature of the problem. He has taken it all personally, but I had warned him about specific problem behaviors that, done elsewhere, would also get him into trouble, except where sysops don't notice it, and I suspect that he got away with enough that he thought it was okay, and interpreted my warnings as personal harassment.
 * Goldenburg111, I suggest you close and archive template this request. You can always file an unblock request if and when you are ready for that. You don't think he should be unblocked now, so there is no need to request now. We don't do "requests to shorten block to six months." The block was indef, I assume, because the behavior was problematic enough, and wide enough in scope, to not see it as simply a transient problem, fixed by a day's break. I was indef blocked, my first real block on en.wikipedia, and the admin did it exactly properly -- much to her amazement, I wrote about that later. She wrote "indef until no need." or something like that. She saw what I'd written as a personal attack. The user I allegedly attacked became my strongest supporter on Wikipedia.... Since the whole thing was a mistake, a misunderstanding, it was cleared up as soon as I put up an unblock template. I actually waited just because I wanted to see what it was like to be blocked and what would happen if I didn't do anything.
 * I found out. First, if one has been very active, it sucks to be blocked. But it can also be good for the soul. As to not putting up an unblock template, nothing happened. The tooth fairy did not descend and rescue me. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above)
 * I did not see that TeleComNasSprVen has been indef blocked when I wrote what is below.


 * Well what is necessary is that the disruption stop. I have seen the user respond to clear boundaries set by a sysop ready to block to enforce them.
 * Harassment is one of the claims, a relatively small one. It's diff'd.
 * With the Diego Grez incident, there was no information revealed that can't be found elsewhere, but we don't allow random users to edit user talk pages here to point to elsewhere, and since the user himself was capable of doing it himself, I reverted it, and TCNSV started revert warring over it, and claimed "private evidence," not specifying at all what he knew. Eventually, I was able to find an email address for Diego Grez and reached him, and his response is above. What's relevant here is that, indeed, this could be seen as a harassing edit by TCNSV. It was very much not wanted.
 * TCNSV was recently given sysop rights on one wiki, Outreach wiki. There are 281 listed administrators there, and he has 213 edits total. He does a lot of wikignoming.
 * He was an administrator on Incubator. The request for removal read According to the experiences in past days with so many hot-headed actions of [this user] I am suggesting to remove his rights, as his actions using admin rights very often create issues and additional work rather then save it. It should be understood that he only had a total of 344 edits there. Where he was blocked was on simple. He had many more edits there: 3073. He has recently returned to activity there, but only a little.
 * On Outreach, there are so many administrators that it may be harmless; my guess is that he would not dare to pull the tricks there that he has pulled elsewhere. He has roughly 12,000 edits on Wikipedia, as I recall, and no blocks. Many of the things he has done recently here, on Beta, and on Meta, would have gotten him blocked in a flash. So I know that he knows how to be careful. He believed that he could get away with it here.
 * For some comparisons: I have 10,723 edits here. You have 3091. He has 1021 edits here.
 * TCNSV is explicitly here to "My purpose is to enforce the Resolution:Licensing policy Wikimedia-wide." He has not cared what other damage he might be causing. Nothing wrong with the purpose, per se, but he was not authorized to do that any more than you or I are, and his interpretations of the policy were his own, not the Foundation's. His work identifying problem files was quite welcome, but how he was notifying users was not, and revert warring over fixing a file image problem, right or wrong, not the way to go, especially when he's revert warring over just about anything. One of his last edits must have been to revert my modification of his blanking comment on User:Diego Grez. Harmless. I had edited it, trying to figure out how to make a null edit stick, the software kept dumping it. So I finally changed the wording slightly and, of course it took. My purpose was to get the statement about receiving email in the edit history, to validate the blanking, show where it came from, make it verifiable. His theme appears to have become "Abd is wrong. Revert." Of course being slightly better than a stopped clock, I might be right more than twice a day. Many other examples could be shown.


 * TCNSV often had a point. And, again, I could provide examples where something useful came out of his work. But it really doesn't need to be so hard.


 * Now that TCNSV is blocked, I'm going to close the request above. This is a page to request custodian attention to a situation, not really to debate it. I provided evidence that can back the block that was made, if needed. However, it is my opinion that bans should never be discussed on this page. They should be the subject of a Community Review. Because a custodian showed up and handled the situation, there is no need for more discussion now. There is no desire to beat a dead horse, to prove that anyone was right or wrong. The disruption is stopped, and is not likely to repeat soon, even if TCNSV is unblocked. If anyone has questions for me, my Talk page is open. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Extension:UploadWizard
Please install / activate the UploadWizard, or provide explicit instructions on what I need to do get it installed or activated. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly you need community consensus, because it influences all wikiversity.--Juan de Vojníkov (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall we've had a discussion on this that may not have reached a conclusion. When I upload to commons I use the Upload Wizard and like it. It would be great to have it here! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Files
Alright, can someone please go through and clean out Category:Files needing copyright information? Per Licensing policy and Wikiversity fair use, these files need to be deleted by last year. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See Resources with Files Pending Deletion, User Pages with Files Pending Deletion, and Unused Files Pending Deletion. More than 2,000 files have been either removed or tagged as Fair Use.  The remaining files are part of student projects sponsored by User:Jtneill, and are awaiting his response as to how he wants them addressed.  Yes, they could just be deleted.  But because there were files outstanding for more than a year without license information, there's little urgency in addressing them at this point.  We can wait for James to return from his break and provide a recommendation.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the user's claim, there are files the Category that have only recently been uploaded. I have started a learning resource to handle this issue as learning-by-doing, it is at Licensing of Wikiversity media. The first file I looked at was not a Jtneill participant. We need a generic process that will efficiently handle the situation. Dave has done a yeoman job, already.
 * A brief summary of the learning project: this project will tag files involved in the educational process here as Fair Use, if any user so decides to tag them. These files, generically tagged, unilaterally, will then be listed, machine-readable, as Fair Use, being used on a specific page in mainspace (Licensing of Wikiversity media/Files), satisfying the purpose and letter of the policy. They will also be prodded for slow deletion. If the Prod is removed, then normal process will be followed. As part of this process, any user may delist the file from the licensing learning resource, as not having educational use, or perhaps being blatant copyright violation, speedy deletion tagging the file, which then enters the normal deletion process, i.e., it will be deleted, or the tag will be removed and WV:RFD may be used. Very ample notice will be provided to users whose files may face deletion, and not only mere notice, but a specific offer of support. It is about time we settle this issue. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is most important, in terms of urgency, is that files being kept because they are possibly either uploaded by the owner, are free content from elsewhere, or are possibly eligible for a fair use claim, be tagged as fair use, so that any re-users of content may rapidly, by machine, identify and handle these files distinctly from free content. What is eligible for Fair Use permanently is more stringent than a temporary claim. Hence the project creates a temporary claim, at most. If a permanent claim of fair use is made, or licensing information is supply, the page is removed from the licensing project listing; likewise, if the file is tagged for speedy deletion, the file is removed. Speedy deletion will put the file into the normal deletion queue, with dispute procedure well established.
 * This procedure will handle, within a few days, Category:Files needing copyright information, because it will supply fair use information and/or we will toss the files in the deletion queue. There may be other files, categorized differently, I have not investigated that.
 * There is work needed on Licensing of Wikiversity media. Perhaps those who are eager to clean up the situation will help. I agree that it is long overdue. So let's do it! What has been missing in the past is a coherent community process to satisfy WMF policy while at the same time pursuing Wikiveristy's unique educational process goals.
 * We should not toss a mess into the hands of custodians. Custodians should not have to make complex decisions, where it can be avoided, except as advised by the community. This process will create some safeguards, avoiding the extremes. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of an improperly licensed image with no appropriate fair use rationale, though it is in use on the Motivation and Emotion project. Source points to Australia domain DailyLife.com.au and permission is claimed to be 'open content' - not exactly true, because Fairfax.com's Terms of Use linked to at the bottom of that page expressly states "In particular, you may not use any Material on the Fairfax Network to establish, maintain or provide, or assist in establishing, maintaining or providing your own publications, Internet site or other means of distribution." If there are other images tagged inappropriately as being 'free' contrary to their purported sources, then the amount of unfree material in circulation may be bigger than just the amount tagged, which means a deeper review of these files is needed. I note that most of these images are part of Motivation and Emotion, James's project, as you have said; however, we can still do an impromptu early review of any such images while we wait for his response. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to go through every image and verify the licensing information if you wish. If there's something I can do with a simple bot that would help you build a list of images to investigate, please request it at Bots/Requests.  Separately, I would be happy to delete any files that are appropriately tagged for deletion as a violation of copyright.  But if you discover that the information on a file is incorrect, I believe you have an obligation to correct that information, since you were bold enough to investigate it to begin with.  Thanks!  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Some cleanup needed.
In 2011, as a custodian, I moved Wavevolution to User:EttoreGreco/Wavevolution. This user created other language versions of this page in mainspace, also moved to user space by others, see the history of User:EttoreGreco/Wavevolution in German, and User:EttoreGreco/Wavevolution in Italian.

Last year, the user recreated Wavevolution in mainspace, as a less-visually-developed version of what is in his user space. Attempting to fix this today, I copied the mainspace content to User talk:EttoreGreco/Wavevolution, intending to request deletion of the mainspace page. However, it would have been better to move the page, with its history, to that location, but I cannot now do that, as the page exists. I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the mainspace page, but it would probably be superior to move it over my talk page creation, or -- better -- to merge the history of the two files, letting the user choose which version is preferred.

This content, being of the nature of an essay, personal opinion, original research, fringe, etc., will, in mainspace, be a target for deletion, see already.

The user has not responded to any Talk page requests or notices. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

See also Commutalism, a recreation of User:EttoreGreco/Commutalism. For this user, and for a time, it may be better to leave redirects in place in mainspace. In spite of notices on the user's talk page, the user may not be clear that these pages were moved. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. To complete this, the older revisions should be restored. If that's done, I'll instruct the user specifically how to pick which revision is wanted. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ right. You might also reference Wikipedia:Help:Page history.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

IP Block exempt
Please give me this right so I cannot be effected by IP blocks. It has happened to me at wikipedia before, and I would like this right so I won't be effected by IP blocks. My brother, or my class, will start editing Wikiversity. --Goldenburg111 01:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ - The best way for you to not be affected by IP blocks would be for you to encourage your brother and your classmates to not violate Wikiversity policy. If they aren't mature enough to edit here, don't encourage them to start.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ok then. --Goldenburg111 17:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Shared internet access is a common problem, but it's much worse on Wikipedia than here. (Because some kid playing around is much more likely to do so on Wikipedia!
 * Goldenburg, back then, there was some vandalism of your pages, that may have come from other students at your school. Did that happen? If so, there may be no way to prevent a problem. If you find yourself IP blocked, you can still use email, if I'm correct, through the WV interface, and you can email a custodian that way. You may email me, you have my email address, and I'll forward it appropriately. Be sure to write down the IP address, the block message will tell you. If they are disruptive, you might get blamed for it, but only if checkuser is run. We can support you here on Wikiversity, I assume. IP block exemption is not granted, usually, unless there is a reason. The usual reason is *not* disruptive editing, but the use of open proxies. I doubt your brother or schoolmates will be doing that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks Abd. --Goldenburg111 23:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of GLAM newspapers without consensus
Special:Diff/1165966. As I was told before, if I had any beef with some of Abd's actions, I am to bring it to the attention of administrators rather than carrying the dispute myself. I dispute the changes Abd made in that diff, which were without consensus; the GLAM newspapers should be archived normally from the Colloquium, that is by the archive bot, and leaving them on the Colloquium at present did not do any harm. At the very least, they were a good read and it was convenient to access them from Wikiversity's main discussion page. That Abd sought to inconvenience me by this action, removing the GLAM newspapers before even attaining consensus to do so, leads me to post this notice here. I request administrative re-review of this unilateral action and if possible overturn of the removal of the GLAM newspapers. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would have been better to seek consensus before removing the Colloquium subscription for these articles. However, it also would have been better for consensus to have been requested before they were added.  It wasn't.  Taking personal offense in Abd's actions is inappropriate.  This also doesn't require custodian action.  There is a discussion at Wikiversity talk:Colloquium.  You are free to join that conversation without edit warring with Abd.  Make your case for why the articles should be returned and the subscription added or renewed.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request
Please update the license title to Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. It is currently like this: "Attribution/Share-Alike". See the official website here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Also see m:MediaWiki talk:Wikimedia-copyright. Thanks, --Glaisher (discuss • contribs) 08:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel compelled to post here, because I had broken the interaction ban but I am not sure if that warrants a sanction. And in addition to that, I had posted to Abd's talkpage today here to warn him about the massive crosswiki undertaking of removing the speedy deletion tags on Augusto De Luca's userpages. I am afraid that this behavior, when shown to the global community at Meta (which I will notify shortly), may reflect badly on the state of Wikiversity. There is perhaps nothing that can be done about his actions on other wikis, but I am asking the community what, if anything, should be done toward Abd, whether it be stopping him or permitting him to do so. And what is the consensus for Augusto De Luca? Abd has tried ceaselessly to argue against consensus, first by excluding votes from "non-Wikiversitans", then disputing the close, and now possibly have us use more time to discuss this issue further after closure.

I am also asking for administrative review of User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Actions, whether this should be in the scope of Wikiversity. Although transparent, it might also be construed as a page facilitating disruption.

If necessary for Wikiversity's health, please block me for violating the interaction ban with Abd. But please consider, as a community, what to do with him. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 20:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ? --Goldenburg111 21:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with user Goldenburg111) To my knowledge, Wikiversity is NOT responsible for the actions of anyone on another wiki! Each wiki is quite capable of taking care of themselves. If actions on another wiki affect us here, such as Commons deleting images we are using, then we consider actions here. I have been reading all of the statements written on all sides of the Augusto De Luca matter. In my opinion, previous consensus on the sanctity of harmless user pages was clearly violated with the most recent consensus. I believe it is inappropriate and disruptive for us to consider the matter further.--Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However Wikiversity is responsible for evaluating whether resources further Wikiversity's mission, what standards of ethics Wikiversity wishes to encourage or discourage, and what activities are within Wikiversity's scope. -- dark lama  22:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Darklama, that's true. However, the actions I am carefully taking, are not being taken here, they are cross-wiki. However, because they relate to the study I undertook of this case, I am documenting what I'm doing there, that's all. What I'm doing is allowed on every wiki, AFAIK. Any user may tag files for speedy deletion, and any user may untag them. The deletion is then a contested one, and a different process is followed. TeleCom has been unclear on that, revert warring over speedy deletion tag removal on Beta. See my report on meta on this: at the end.
 * As to the interaction ban, I waive enforcement of that for him with respect to his first edit to my user page. His further response was gratuitously tendentious. As to filing a report here, that was disruptive. There is no emergency.
 * So far, the only person to complain about this is TeleCom. Others certainly know about it. Two files have been deleted probably as a result of my setting this up and starting. A Russian sysop has commented on my study talk page. It's not like this is secret. Undoing it systematically -- I'd definitely recommend getting clear consensus for that, because it would probably violate local policies) -- would take minutes. I have the diffs all set up, load them, Undo, paste in a reason, and done. 50 edits? 10 minutes work. I am taking a lot longer, because I'm translating the edit summary into the local language. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, educational scope. The activity is very clearly educational, for me. I do intend to move the study into mainspace. It's not ready for that. At this point, it's my study, but comment is particularly welcome on the attached Talk pages, and if anything there is offensive, please let me know. My goal is clarification of wiki policy, and study of how wikis work. Any other questions, my talk page is open. (Not to TeleCom, he's worn out his welcome. He could email me, though, I wouldn't blow a fuse.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is a disruption. - Sidelight12 Talk 07:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

❌ I am closing this conversation with a decision that no action is being taken. No one is eligible for any sort of disciplinary action as of this point. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

TeleComNasSprVen
TeleComNasSprVen yesterday violated his interaction ban to raise an issue he considered important, to prevent me from doing what he imagined would be cross-wiki disruptive. AGF, I did not raise a request here about that, but he did. However, today, he has again violated the ban, just to claim that he was right. (He's not right, and this has nothing to do with "grudge", but that's irrelevant). His indef block was lifted through his agreement to an interaction ban with me.. Please restore the indef block, he has shown himself unable to hold to a simple agreement, and he is clearly aware of the ban. I would notify him except that he has considered notifications from me disruptive. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that diff, I left an archived note to others who may be watching the page, not necessarily directed at Abd himself. And in any case he has also restored it after retraction so as to prove the disruption here. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Attempted removal was an additional violation of interaction ban. The removal was based on this request, apparently. Above, he acknowledges using my Talk page to provide notices to others. (That is normally legitimate in the absence of an interaction ban or specific request, that's part of what warnings are about.) The removal, like the original post, distracted me from my work, because I must review talk page notifications promptly, given what I'm doing. Per his attempted removal, I struck his comment with a note; I had already written and was attempting to save my response and the removal caused edit conflict, which then takes even more time to handle. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ TeleComNasSprVen you can make a point without posting on Abd's page. Action won't be taken by me, because TeleComNasSprVen does have valid concerns, but he needs to find another way to address them than to post on Abd's page. TeleComNasSprVen knows the responsibility to not post on his talkpage, and is expected to not do it by the community. I think no action should be taken, but if an another admin differs in opinion I won't stop them from issuing a temporary short block. - Sidelight12 Talk 19:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Study about collaborative production
Dear Wikiversity custodian

We hope this message finds you well. We are writing you as part of the European Project P2Pvalue.eu in order to invite you to take part in a survey. The survey is part of a research project about how certain design aspects might explain collaborative communities' capacity to generate value and resilience. Wikiversity is one of a sample of 300 cases of collaborative production we are asking to complete the sample. We identified 350 though the Directory of common - based peer production (http://directory.p2pvalue.eu/). Research results will be published with open access licences, and if you so choose, we will send it to you when the study is finished. The resulting raw data will be anonymized and will be made publicly available with a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA) in the P2Pvalue project website.

Thank you in advance for taking part. The survey should not take you more than 15 minutes.

To participate, please click on the link below. Sincerely, The P2P value project  & IGOPnet team (researchers of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

-- Click here to do the survey: http://p2p-value.limequery.org/index.php/survey/index/sid/363169/newtest/Y/lang/en (The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.83.182.7 (talk • contribs) .)
 * This message was also sent to English Wikinews. Microchip08 (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Whitelisting ereticopedia.org
I am inviting a published academic to participate in Wikiversity, and to build resources here relating to the history of the Inquisition, translating them from Italian. For this, I need a whitelisting of a web site that he is editorial manager of, ereticopedia.org.

The site is an academic collaboration, published by an academic press, Aracne. Why this is blacklisted is a long story, it's been claimed that it was spammed, but it will not be spammed here, it will be properly used, -- and every instance of it elsewhere that I was able to find, about three, were also proper.

To whitelist it, add the regex code \bereticopedia\.org to Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist.

If anyone is interested in the history of the blacklisting, see the denied blacklist removal request on meta.

While you are at it, the whitelisting for http://lenr-canr.org may be removed, as you can see. I eventually got that delisted at meta. It was not easy. That action was cited in my community cold fusion topic-ban on Wikipedia, ah, those were the days! It also had never been spammed....

Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Why is translations from Italian to English necessary in order to teach, learn, or research the history of the Inquisition? What material about the Inquisition does this website include that cannot be taught, learned, or researched from another website? How does links to this website improve participants' understanding of the Inquisition over other websites? I think linking to Italian works would improve participants' understanding at Italian Wikiversity rather then here at English Wikiversity where reasonably few people may know Italian and may be able to benefit from trying to read any linked pages. Are any pages about the Inquisition on the website written in English? -- dark lama  13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Darklama. This web site appears to be the most comprehensive compilation of material on heretics and the Inquisition in existence, by far, or certainly in existence for ready access. It is entirely academically compiled, see [ www.ereticopedia.org/credits ], the academic supervisory board and the editorial board, and [ www.ereticopedia.org/contributori ] the full list of contributors, all academically affiliated. You are correct that few here will know Italian; therefore the translation project, which then serves for education in translation, learning by doing, which is a spectacular way to learn a language.


 * None of the pages on the site are written in English yet, except [ www.ereticopedia.org/start-en ] and [ www.ereticopedia.org/about ]. Notice this: We are open to and we will examine with pleasure all collaboration proposals.


 * I am in email communication Daniele Santarelli, the "editorial secretary" for the project, and he is friendly to this.


 * I hope to attract academics to Wikiversity to work on this. I will be assisting with the translation project, as an English editor here or there. The first attempted registration for participation by an involved professor here was immediately globally locked with no cross-wiki edits; I am not detailing the global history here, it is huge. Effectively, though, a real-world person is being considered globally banned, without there ever being a discussed ban anywhere, it is almost entirely the work of a single steward, and addressing this immediately at meta appears to be impossible.


 * I do not yet have permission to copy material from ereticopedia here, which would include permission to translate here. That's in process. But I can begin developing the resources with reference to pages on the site, and it is irritating to have to put up inactive links, requiring the user copy and paste to the address bar, taking extra time with every link, and there will be many. The page should be whitelisted here based on my intention to create resources, and based on the quality and potential utility of the site. I will start creating resources anyway, with inactive links.


 * The whitelisting here will have no global effect. In the future, it could have an impact on delisting requests, but only if actual legitimate usage appears. Whitelisting has actually been suggested on meta, for any desired use.


 * The administrators who manage the global blacklist have often said that there is no problem with blacklisting useful pages, because editors can always get them whitelisted. I have, in fact, reviewed whitelisting practice. It is not wiki, "quick." I have seen legitimate whitelisting requests on the English Wikipedia sit for months. Ordinary users rarely request whitelisting; instead, they either abandon the edit -- too much trouble to handle it -- or, less frequently, they use a workaround, as I am here. Requesting whitelisting is rare.


 * Ordinarily, it should not be necessary for an editor in good standing to prove that a link is appropriate before adding it. But what just happened here is common: an administrator comes up with an opinion questioning the possible usage. Then the user needs to respond to that. We should set a simple policy on this. It's easy to add to the whitelist, and easy to take something out if there is a problem. It should therefore be easy to get a whitelisting of specific pages, or of an entire site if the site has extensive materials. This case is where an entire site is useful, I have seen no problem pages there at all.


 * The spam blacklist was designed to stop spam. Almost all blacklistings are of sites that are useless for the projects. It's the exceptions that are the problem, where the blacklisting is really used to punish "promotion," or, with lenr-canr.org, arose out of editorial conflict and personal dispute, with a pile of created -- and misleading -- arguments, no actual spamming.


 * The case here is an extreme one, where by ordinary blacklisting procedures, there would be no chance of listing if requested, because requests need to provide reasons, and evidence, or they will be denied. It wasn't a requested blacklisting, in this case, there was no link abuse, it was simply done by an individual steward, with no explanation. There still is no explanation. But I do know the reason, I've done weeks of research on this issue. The reason is irrelevant here.


 * I have, in the past, gotten two web sites delisted, one was lenr-canr.org, the other was http://lyrikline.org]]. The blacklisting of lyrikline did major damage to the projects, with articles on poets, and it took even longer to get it delisted. Basically, the administrators "assume good faith" for whoever added a page to the blacklist, but not of other editors who want to use it or who added the links in the first place. The only strategy for removal that I've seen work is substantial whitelisting, and even then, it can still take years. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone can normally add or remove links. When there are disagreements about what links to include or exclude, discussion may be initiated to seek consensus. People may discuss the merit, pros and cons of links, and the link's utility. I think understanding why and how links to a specific website are needed are appropriate considerations for whitelisting. External links is/was a proposed attempt to define Wikiversity's policy on external links. Item 12 of External links suggests websites with non-English language content should normally be avoided. As you may not recall, I whitelisted lenr-canr.org at English Wikiversity because exploration of fringe science is within Wikiversity's scope. -- dark lama  16:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

✅ The about page is in English and helps to clarify this may reasonably be within scope. -- dark lama  16:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Darklama. I will address the policy/guideline issue on Wikiversity talk:External links. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing in delinking what MIGHT be spam?
See: Wikiversity_talk:Colloquium https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity_talk:Colloquium&oldid=1197498 I'm not sure why a wiki needs leaflets. And, the leaflets should be put on commons.--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes there.
 * The link is to a WMF wiki. This would almost never be spam. Look at the original wiki, you can see in page history many editors. This is a real project.
 * The project is to print paper leaflets for wiki projects (presumably WMF projects, including Wikipedia Wikiprojects, but not limited to that), for two purposes: distribution at Wikimania 2014, and distribution in other locations. I assume the leaflets will be hosted. I don't agree that Commons would necessarily be the best host for the leaflets. They probably would be hosted, as to on-line documents, wherever the project is located. These may have time-limited value, as proposed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania is a real world conference that is held every year to discuss the Wikimedia projects, and the Wikimania Wiki helps to coordinate the efforts. I don't understand why a new wiki is started each year, or why Wikimania isn't being hosted at Wikiversity because that was asked about some years ago and there was support for it. I think the only odd thing about the announcement is on some projects it was posted to the content namespace where more people are likely to read it and at other projects it was posted to talk namespace where less people are likely to read it. I wonder how the decision of where to post the announcement on each project was decided. -- dark lama  16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the question asked, yes, you did the right thing, in that you questioned the contribution as being non-standard (on a talk page and advertising a free service), and opted to protect Wikiversity and Wikiversity participants until more information was available. Please continue to do so. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that it was right and wrong. Yes, his motive was laudable, and mistakes can be fixed. No, he could have easily verified that this was not spam. Yes, he asked here. No, with less work than it took to ask here, he could have discovered the situation himself. So, yes and no. Basically, Wikiversity is for learning by doing, and I assume that he is learning by doing. Right, Guy?
 * As to the placement on Talk, I don't think there was a "decision," just some rather inexperienced volunteer work. I considered moving it to the Colloquium page and just haven't done it. Anyone could. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

184.7.83.128 disruptive activity
Special:Contributions/184.7.83.138 is active at high rate with vandalism/test edits on inappropriate pages. I'm looking at and will certainly revert some contributions. Possibly all. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, trolling, see latest edit . --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

✅. Requested steward action with. Took 3 minutes, thanks, Ajraddatz. One week block. All edits reverted except harmless test pages. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, the IP did register an account and is up to it again, this time as User:Dusty3014. No response to talk page warning. Vandalizing a template with high usage, Template:Schoolblock. Some of the templates he touched were obsolete, should have been deleted long ago; others should be at least semi-protected. I will review the user's contributions when the user is stopped, it's easier to do it en masse than piecemeal. (Of course, anyone can do that. Indeed, if this user promptly reverts his changes, he should not be blocked. I've suggested that on user talk.) There is, so far, no global activity for the user, so I have not reported on meta. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Blocked by Darklama. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User requested unblock with abusive comment (and block reason as the "unblock reason"). This is correlated with Special:Contributions/184.7.84.151, also cross-wiki, rangeblock on enwiki, see . Range is likely 184.7.83.0/16. To save custodian time, I've denied the unblock request on User talk:Dusty3014 --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:William2056 spam-only account
Spambot pattern registration, two spam pages created in Turkish. We need a Template:Liar Liar Pants on Fire. See also previous revision of user page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - All contributions removed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Abd's disruptions
This was Abd's statement  "To avoid what led to the block I have a clear intention: not to become involved in Wikiversity governance and general maintenance. It was not welcome, even where I was enforcing long-established policy. I will work only on educational resources of interest to me and value to users." Yet he continues politics and getting involved in governance and general maintenance. Also conducts in harassment, systematic disruption, anarchic, and controlling behavior. He has been blocked from other wikis due to his behavior.

Conducted in sneaky behavior, in part by using email for resolution, then throwing his [[|attack] on my page, after temporarily letting him on it. Big mistake. This is because I took action, because the previous action taken was a joke. However, I did not want to be involved in that particular discussion, and Abd used that as an opportunity to use that for his harassment. Dave Braunschweig supported his and Leucosticte's ill behaviors. is justification of why I blocked of a certain user; or look Leucosticte's edit history prior to May https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?limit=500&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Leucosticte&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=5. From the above link, abd unethically tried to pressure me to quit, because he had no case. Abd knows he has no case, and this is the only way he feels like he can get his way of promoting un-tolerated behavior.

Example of disruption by Abd pointed out by TeleComNasSprVen then closing it with. He continues to cause disruption about 'Augusto de Luca' on other wikis.

Abd knows he is not allowed on user's pages, such as Ottava Rima's but annoys on his page anyways.

Constantly wars crosswiki with telecom. Example of hypocritical clownery from abd, Abd's interactions are an irritant to many users.

Plays these kinds of revert games. Argues that these pictures are "educational" or something, and that everyone has to go through redtape to delete it. 200px|. One picture there is potentially educational, but the others are selfies.

comment about behavior by Vituzzu.

Seeking permanent ban, especially of email for Abd. Unblocking him again will only cause a headache for wiki users. I'm also bringing this to the attention of meta-wiki. His behavior harms wikiprojects. I've taken a semi-break since this mess.- Sidelight12 Talk 01:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Abd has been a bad apple throughout his time on this project. I tried to stop his abuse before and was desysopped when Wikiversity was hijacked by those connected to Wikipedia Review. Good luck, because you will most likely end up banned before the obvious abusers are removed. I am 100% for a ban of Abd. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in those diffs that seems to justify a block or a ban. Leucosticte (discuss • contribs) 01:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The first link is from September 2013. Abd clarified his intentions in January 2014 at. The next links are from March and April 2014, followed by a jump back to December 2013. The 'revert games' appears to be an edit conflict in June 2014, followed by a return in focus to March and April 2014. Is there anything current supporting this request, or is it only based on the previous activity? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is about his actions posted above. I intended to get to it, from that time, and I procrastinated by taking a semi-break, because I am sick of that. The promise he made was for him to be unblocked, not to be renegotiated by himself. His supposed renegotiation was not terms for his unblock. Also, that wasn't an edit conflict, it was obnoxiousness. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a MediaWiki bug that sometimes, with a one minute edit gap, accepts an edit with no edit conflict warning. Because there was a one minute gap here, this likely happened. My edit requesting speedy close could not have been written in one minute (saved at 2:53), so for sure I loaded that page without having read Sidelight's additional comment (at 2:52). Sidelight actually removed my comment instead of simply restoring his. I fixed it. The final discussion as archived: . --Abd (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a request page, not a discussion page; user bans are not considered here and cannot be decided here, that would be for Community Review. Sidelight placed a series of references to this RCA filing, apparently to canvass negative comment, instead of showing cause for block. Even if the above were immediate, none of the linked activity would be blockworthy, nor was I warned over any of it. But it is not immediate, and concerns resolved matters, all except for my suggestion, linked above, that Sidelight12 resign as a probationary custodian, which I repeat now, given the above demonstration. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Standard wikilawyering from Abd done to distract. This is an appropriate place for ban discussions. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How is that canvassing when 3 out of 7 of the people notified are you and the people who support you? The people were notified, because they were mentioned. 2 others are probably more neutral than anything. More illogical statements from you that don't address the matter at all. You think anyone who doesn't cater to you should resign. - Sidelight12 Talk 04:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With those notices, Sidelight poked at least three hornet's nests. I am not responding to most of Sidelight's claims, nor arguing for the desysop of Sidelight, because this is not the page for that. It is not even the page for me to argue against being blocked, though that would be allowed. (My user talk page would be the place for that, and if any custodian has concerns, considering a possible block, please raise them with me on my talk page.) Bans are a community decision, not a sysop action. (That is crucial to global bans, which are predicated on local bans, which do not arise from sysop action.)
 * As to the thinking and Sidelight's generalization, I have never suggested a sysop resign, until this case. Globally, I've been highly involved in three possible desysop processes. In the first, the sysop was troutslapped by ArbCom, in the second, the admin was desysopped, and in the third (here), the same. Ban and desysop discussions can be highly disruptive, train wrecks and do not build projects. I avoid them until and unless they are necessary. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * - Requests for comments at Meta-Wiki. - Sidelight12 Talk 03:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Meta RfCs are often filed by clueless users, and two stewards have already commented that this is purely an en.wikiversity issue. There is no meta issue raised. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No cause for block was alleged here, and blocks for ancient history are highly discouraged. (See the proposed -- and long-standing -- Blocking policy.) As there is no stated basis for sysop action here, regarding me, I request this be closed. Open, this is an invitation to useless and disruptive argument (in either direction). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

❌ - The request is for a permanent ban of User:Abd. We don't have the ability to permanently ban, only to block. A ban would require Meta action, which has been rejected as a local issue. According to Blocking policy, 'Blocks for behavior that has ceased or may happen in the future are inappropriate. Blocks are to deter continuing recent behavior.' The behavior described here is not recent and not continuing. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not closed. your "not done" is a conflict of interest. And an involved party, cannot close it. I'm sure one of his uninvolved friends will try. Again, "blocking policy" is an incomplete proposal. - Sidelight12 Talk 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * A community has the ability to make their policies within the framework that WMF and the global community provides. A community ban at a local wiki has been an acceptable process at other wikis, and it would seem to be an acceptable practice here. If there was to be a holistic global ban, that would have to be undertaken at meta, and one of the evidence sources is the actions taken by local wikis to deal with problematic users. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum. To differentiate between a ban from a block. A block is on an account, a ban is on the person, irrespective of the account(s) and IP address(es). Generally a ban is a longer and bigger discussion and conducted by the whole community, a block is usually something undertaken by admin on their investigation. Often the two meet in the middle, however, the concept of "not welcome under any circumstance" and taking all means to prevent or mitigate their actions are usually pretty specific. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Billinghurst has explained this correctly, as I'd expect. A block is a custodian decision (thus a request for block belongs on this page); a ban is a community decision (and the discussion takes place on WV:Community Review. Other than to enforce the consensus at Community Review, blocks are ad hoc and are, as it were, emergency actions, because a CR may take a long time. Further, a CR takes up substantial user time, there may be careful presentation of evidence, etc. There is a global ban process on meta, and it requires at least two community-discussed (or arbitration committee decided) bans as a prerequisite. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction and clarification. --  Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am very concerned about Dave Braunschweig continuing to be a custodian. The lack of basic information is a gross error, and what I have seen of his statements on other pages verifies in my mind that he is not fit to have advance privileges here. His attempt to close shows a willingness to take inappropriate actions in pursuit of a mentality that is opposite of what is best for Wikiversity. I cannot take any of his statements above as being appropriate because they show gross error and are done in the defense of someone who is clearly a major problem at this Wiki. 173.153.11.93 (discuss) 20:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a request for custodian action (local users, not even custodians and bureaucrats, cannot remove custodian rights, that must be done by stewards, who will look for community consensus, absent emergency) and involves matters which have been resolved. Dave Braunschweig, after these matters were brought up, was confirmed as a permanent custodian with very high consensus. If someone believes that a custodian is acting inappropriately, due process is to first communicate with the custodian, on the custodian's talk page (if not off-wiki by email). If not satisfied, then there is WV:Custodian feedback where a cooperative resolution may be sought, and, beyond that, there is WV:Community review, which is our only custodian removal process.
 * Because this is out of place and disruptive, and particularly as it was anonymously posted, I intend to close and archive this section, -- as I requested before -- but will first allow time for objection by any responsible WV user. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on School:Information technology/GCSE
Massive, IP and new accounts. Perhaps semiprotect, consider blocks. (Prior vandalism was identified as "students," by User:Khairdean, "charming lot," eh?) Perhaps the school IP should be soft-blocked and let them sort it out. Learning experience. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pinging Khairdean about this, I'm concerned about this user's response, see, which accepted vandal signups and content, thus complicating review. At this point, all vandalism-only accounts should be indeffed until the smoke clears, but talk page access and email should be left open unless abused. As these are likely teenagers, in a problematic social environment, we should show zero tolerance for disruption, but easy acceptance if they commit to cooperative participation here. I am not warning on talk pages for process reasons, I assume Khairdean will communicate with them. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

specific accounts

 * vandalism only
 * (blocked by global sysop)
 * (course signup only)(user page blanked, deleted) vandalized User:Parnell27
 * claims to be Jamie Shipton.
 * apparently legitimate
 * (welcomed)
 * signed up, delinked name. (welcomed)
 * possibly legitimate
 * (not welcomed yet, see edit to personal sandbox, ah, inauspicious.)
 * (course signup, blanked it)
 * --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * possibly legitimate
 * (not welcomed yet, see edit to personal sandbox, ah, inauspicious.)
 * (course signup, blanked it)
 * --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocks in. Will add comments to user pages as time allows. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

please add the Korean + Slovene WV also to the RC sidebar
example, thx. Erkan Yilmaz 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitelist Request
Request that this page be whitelisted to be able to add bitly links. Thanks!--Visdaviva (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it isn't pages that are white-listed, but destinations. If bitly is blocked, it's because it is used for advertising, and to mislead and misdirect users to locations other than what they might intend to visit.  Bitly has great advantages on social media platforms, but it shouldn't be necessary here.  Just put the actual link in your content rather than the bitly shortcut.  And be sure to review  External links.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, if a link is useful and is properly presented, it will be allowed here, so if it cannot be used due to the global blacklist, request whitelisting on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Be patient, and if you need assistance, ask me, I have experience with this. Meanwhile, you can bypass the blacklist by removing the http:// from the URL, or by using a pair of nowiki tags on the full url. The blacklist only prevents actual linking. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving a page
Can someone of you move this page Physics/Overview in Physics/Simple? Thanks!


 * You can move the page yourself. See Wikipedia:Help:How to move a page for instructions.  Since Wikiversity is for learning by doing, you should try it!  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'll do it! -- Nenomaz (discuss • contribs)

Several deletions
Would it be possible to delete the 22 empty Special:ShortPages please? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)