Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/18

Banned Wikipedia user wrecking wikiversity
The user Ben Steigmann (Blastikus) is a perm banned Wikipedia editor. Please see Ben Steigmann Sockpuppet investigation also this recently Proposed site ban for Blastikus by Wikipedia user Manul and other editors.

Steigmann has been using wikiversity as a parapsychology soap-box to promote his conspiracy theory, fringe and pseudoscience beliefs and attack Wikipedia which he finds too skeptical. , etc, he has also created other articles on here. This fringe pushing and pseudoscience is not appropriate for Wikiversity. Note that off-site he is linking to these articles he has created to others in support of himself apparently refuting skeptical Wikipedia articles. This is giving the website a bad name and reduces any level of academia. Jameskeptic (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for sharing your concern. Wikipedia and Wikiversity have different missions.  Wikipedia's purpose is to provide an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia can argue for truth or accuracy in content.  Wikiversity's mission is to create and host free learning materials and activities.  Learning about controversial issues often requires the opportunity to evaluate all perspectives, so that individuals can form their own opinions.  Current Wikiversity community consensus is to accept fringe and pseudoscience contributions and essays, as long as they are subpages of a larger learning project rather than main pages, and as long as the author respects the rights of other users to create pages of opposing viewpoints.  If there is information on the Parapsychology main page that you believe is not correct or not NPOV, please begin a discussion there so that a more neutral perspective can be presented.  If you disagree with content on subpages of that resource, you are welcome to either work with the author to correct the subpages, or create other subpages that support your opposing viewpoint.  A See Also or brief sentence noting the controversy should then be added to both pages directing readers to the alternative viewpoints.  There is also a  template that could be added to fringe subjects.  Please help others learn more about parapsychology conspiracy theories and fringe and pseudoscience by developing supporting content.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dave but I do not think you have looked at the evidence or the seriousness of the problem as Ben Steigmann on Wikiversity is a perm banned Wikipedia user Ben Steigmann on Wikipedia. So why he is he on Wikiversity? Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project. He has a history of ruining Wikipedia articles with fringe claims and attacking editors and trolling talk-pages going back years Ben Steigmann's sockpuppets

Steigmann is writing anti-Wikipedia things here on Wikiversity pages, he was originally naming skeptical Wikipedia editors and spouting attacks but he removed some of those. Check his talk-page where some remain. According to his Wikiversity page which he updated "Wikipedia currently represents an accumulation of these distortions, and hence I will attack its articles, though I won't single out any editor in doing so, as such action does not address the root of the problem." Do you think is ok that he is using Wikiversity to attack Wikipedia?

Did you look at the site ban? Wikipedis site ban for Blastikus/Ben Steigmann he has been blocked for "using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories,[5] eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment"..

If you look at his edit history on Wikiversity, there are IPs there that have also been banned from Wikipedia on his sock puppet investigation.

More importantly Ben Steigmann last week attempted to copy and paste or spam is the correct term a load of his fringe theories and pseudoscience that he put on Wikiversity straight onto a Wikipedia article for Gustav Geley (he used the same IP he has used on Wikiversity) and using his account Ben Steigmann and other socks before being blocked. Do you think it is acceptable he continues on Wikiversity after such behavior?

The Gustav Geley article is now perm blocked because of his trolling, this user is disruptive. As said this user is using Wikiversity to promote conspiracy theories about skeptics, promote pseudoscience and attacks skeptics or Wikipedia.

Note his most recent edit on Wikiversity "We now have long experience with wikipedia's cadre of dedicated skeptical editors. It is not possible in general to introduce corrections because they will be reverted by individuals who have a clear agenda to trash any articles related to parapsychology, anomalies research, etc., as well as articles about individual researchers." No evidence give of course that skeptics are trying to trash articles related to parapsychology, just libel. But this is the sort of nonsense he is writing on Wikiversity. It is anti-Wikipedia.

I fail to see what any of this has to do with Wikiversity. It is giving this place a bad name. It is obvious this user is here for disruption. Can you please get some admins to look into this. Thank you. Jameskeptic (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jameskeptic is an SPA with no edits here other than to complain about Steigmann, here and on User talk:Jtneill. Jameskeptic has no other activity globally, so this account was created only to report here.


 * Ben Steigmann is indeed Blastikus and the IPs described in the SSP report, I know from off-wiki discussion (wherein Steigmann was discouraged by others from continuing to sock on Wikipedia). This is not a major sock puppeteer, as these things go, he readily admitted who he was, etc.


 * Contrary to what Jameskeptic asserts, Blastikus is not site-banned, merely blocked, so those edits were only block evasion. Steigmann had one edit on Wikipedia, possibly in error, it's easy to do with autologin.


 * The "Proposed site ban for Blastikus" was closed without action.


 * Steigmann has been outraged by the behavior of certain skeptical groups, which are organized to keep fringe points of view off of Wikipedia, as well as, too often, to push biographies of parapsychologists toward defamation. Steigmann does not know how to address this on Wikipedia, through process, and even people who know the relatively arcane procedures often run into severe difficulties. There is a problem on Wikipedia with factions, both unorganized and organized, and, in this case, because the above report shows unfamiliarity with Wikipedia, but rather could be a reflection of off-wiki discussion among organized skeptics, such as the Guerilla Skeptics, see, we may be seeing meat puppetry here. (Minor factions far less obviously organized have been banned from Wikipedia for "off-wiki coordination.")


 * One of the characteristics of Wikipedia factions is intensive activity to block and ban editors with dissenting points of view. Someone like Steigmann, naive about Wikipedia process, is a sitting duck for them. He will simply open his mouth and say things that can get him blocked. He will expect that a good encyclopedia will want "the truth." He will not know how to handle tag-team revert warring, common when a faction is involved. He may not be experienced at negotiating consensus on NPOV text, etc., he will not know the precedents on "undue weight" and how that will be interpreted if push comes to shove, etc.


 * However, we do not need to assess his Wikipedia behavior at all. Precedent is very strong on Wikiversity that users are not to be sanctioned here based on behavior elsewhere. Again, Jameskeptic has no clue about our policies and traditions and is here only to attack this user. I will warn him.


 * Steigmann came here through my invitation to a group of parapsychologists -- scientists -- to participate in creating resources here on the topic, which is a recognized science. (As far as I know, he is not a scientist, as such, just an interested writer. User:DeanRadin is a scientist, see Dean Radin). When Steigmann strayed from neutrality in a top-level or higher-level resource, I suggested that he work at the essay level, where he could express pretty much whatever he likes, and later, neutral resources can be collaboratively built at a higher level. Skeptics are welcome to do the same thing, and, then, to participate in the creation of deep and neutral educational resources.


 * The claim that Steigmann has a history of "ruining Wikipedia articles" is preposterous, as is the claim that he is "wrecking Wikiversity." One page? And if so, fix it! But Jameskeptic is not admitting to being a Wikipedia editor and is certainly not a Wikiversitan. Again, if Steigmann is acting improperly here, a collaborative user would first attempt to address the editing itself, not run to custodians for action. The page cited as a complaint about Wikipedia is an essay page. Believe it or not, we can complain about Wikipedia on Wikiversity! Wikipedians certainly seem to feel free to complain about Wikiversity! I've never seen anyone sanctioned there for it, nor on meta.


 * It's certainly possible that someone goes too far. We will not allow Wikiversity to be used as a haven from which to attack individual Wikipedia editors. We sometimes allow "wikistudies," and the general opinion is that this can be done, if ethical guidelines are followed. We don't necessarily have the guidelines, but our basic principle is avoiding disruption. If someone is personally attacked, that's disruptive. I don't see that Steigmann has done this. But this report, here, is a personal attack on Steigmann, hence, indeed, I do suggest custodial attention, so that a Wikiversity user is not driven away.


 * Steigmann has been contributing a great deal of content. He is not a disruptive user here. Please support him. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

A user being blocked or banned on Wikipedia isn't relevant to a request for custodian action here. They are separate projects with different missions and different policies. If you have specific examples of users being attacked on Wikiversity, please provide links and quotes so your concerns may be reviewed and addressed. Regarding concerns about content, the page in question indicates that it is a personal research project and specifically invites users who dispute the content to create a separate rebuttal page or engage the author in discussion on his talk page. There is no record of you having done either of these before requesting custodian action. In fact, there is no record of you having done anything at all, anywhere. If you're serious about your concern for the Parapsychology project, join our community and improve it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave. One more place where criticism of an essay page can properly be placed, an important one, and Ben missed it: the attached talk page. We give users quasi-administrative status in their user space, as long as they do not abuse this (and fringe opinion is not abuse). In mainspace, we allow authors the right of authorship of an attributed subpage (like Ben's essay linked from Parapsychology/Sources). So a critic has many legitimate options. Perhaps some good will come out of this, perhaps some skeptics on the topic -- besides myself, I am quite skeptical about many parapsychological claims -- will show up and contribute criticism and content. That would be good news, even if it might take occasional adult supervision to keep the kids from fighting.


 * What I've written here is what we are actually doing, in a few cases. At some point this should be codified as guideline or policy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

‎Dave Braunschweig
This first time I posted, it wasn't necessarily a request for action, I realized this. Now with this continuing abuses from Abd and Dave, I'm posting it here. The other pages would be deleted, but they are the ones who dragged it in to those venues. Abd's behavior is abuse, and Dave enables it. Now you've asked for an RCA. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

|Here, Snowolf said he missed acting on Dave's self unblock, when there was an emergency. Then abd cherrypicks which rules to follow. leucostite agreed to stop writing dangerous pages here, then he immediately jumped to write them at Wikibooks. Blocking someone forcing them to agree to avoid admin actions against a user creating problematic pages was extortion. Also making up terms as they go, for their convenience, are inappropriate acts.

| Comment by IP that Dave doesn't understand when blocks are appropriate.

"12:47, 16 October 2014 Dave Braunschweig (discuss | contribs) blocked Sidelight12 (discuss | contribs) (autoblock disabled) for indefinite (Intimidation, harassment, or vulgar language: Misuse of custodian tools.)" He misused custodian tools, and put a false claim of harassment. If anything, Dave's and abd's actions are harassment. Hypocritically tells others don't push your values onto others, then he outright bullies his values onto others, then makes up excuses for it. - Sidelight12 Talk 09:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dave tries to close himself by archiving, especially when a comment was made less than 6 hours before. . This is sneaky behavior. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by IP. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC) - Sidelight12 Talk 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please act on Dave Braunscheweig without prejudice. Seriously something has to be done about this ongoing abuse. - Sidelight12 Talk 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am always open to review of my actions as custodian. It goes with the territory.  As a point of order, however, according to Custodian feedback, users are to first go to the custodian's talk page, and second place comments, suggestions, complaints or questions at Custodian feedback.  Sidelight12 has refused all requests to engage in meaningful dialog regarding his concerns.  I would welcome a neutral custodian's review of my interactions with Sidelight12 and confirmation that there is no ongoing abuse.  I would further welcome a recommendation that Sidelight12 engage in the feedback processes already in place.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a false accusation that I didn't participate in dialog. This is where I post it. I've posted at feedback, and that wasn't necessarily a request for action, it was a notice. - Sidelight12 Talk 22:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: There were requests for warning of Sidelight12 by Abd, and requests for action against Abd and Leucosticte by Sidelight12. All three were closed and archived after several weeks without response. The closing of all three should be considered in any review of my actions as custodian, and I will leave this request here for someone else to review and close whenever they deem it appropriate. The other requests should remain closed until this one is addressed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not close discussions in which you are involved, this is at least the 3rd time you've done that. This all stays here until someone uninvolved and impartial looks at it. There not being enough custodians around, is not an excuse to close this. - Sidelight12 Talk 10:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your request that my activities be reviewed stays open until someone else closes it. But by definition, that review will include my closing of the other three.  Your requests for action against Abd and Leucosticte are closed and archived, as is Abd's request for a warning against you.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Notice of intention to close. These things should not remain open forever. There was no specific action requested, just to "act on Dave Braunscheweig." Sidelight was emergency desyopped based on a steward review of his actions, and his probationary custodianship (which could have been restored by his mentor if appropriate) was terminated. This has been six weeks with no comment. I would simply close if not for my obvious involvement. However, involvement does not completely disallow action; it requires caution, like stating intention. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Closed. As this is an involved close, it will be left here for a week before being archived; an uninvolved user may remove the archive template with an explanation of why this should remain open. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for alternate account
Today I set up an alternate account that I plan to use on Wikiversity, Wikipedia and commons. If you go to w:user:Guy vandegrift's student you will see why I wish to have this account.

Also, you should probably know I have a third alternate account that I have maintained for about a year. It must be kept as confidential as possible, and nothing in mainspace is ever edited from it. User:Abd knows why I need it.

Yours truly, --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, as to the non-disclosed account, I do not recall, you have probably told me. For full security, a 'crat should know, or at least an administrator, but, Guy, if you want my backup on this, you should email me again. That might be good enough. If there is no disruption from them, undisclosed accounts are not a violation of policy. However, accidents happen. People forget what account they are logged into and do something that causes someone else to be upset. That's why disclosure, so that the fact of the account existing does not itself become a cause of disruption. But it's not required, merely advisable.


 * Now, as to the Wikipedia account you disclosed, that may be blocked if noticed. (Don't worry, it is very unlikely that your main account would be blocked because of this.) Role accounts are not allowed. That looks like a role account. In fact, as you describe it, it's not, it is misnamed, it is an account you use to take certain actions, on behalf of your students, for which you are responsible. I don't see the value, frankly. Anything you would do with that account you could do as w:User:Guy vandegrift, and it would be cleaner and clearer. Further, as to what you describe as a purpose, uploading Commons images, if they are noticed, the images will be deleted. The problem is permissions. Who is the author? "Own work" can suffice, if the Commons community believes it; if doubt is raised, the matter will have to go through OTRS, but, if the uploader (you) is not the author (your student is), it won't fly.


 * I recommend that you blank that Wikipedia user page and put a speedy deletion tag on it, saying, in the deletion reason, that you do not intend to use the account, and then don't use it, period, anywhere. Autologin can screw you up. I've seen it happen, with an admin with alternate accounts, he was blocked and very nearly lost his adminship, there was huge disruption. (Local accounts are now a thing of the past, all WMF accounts are now global, except where there are existing accounts that have not been merged. Gradually, those are being cleaned up.) So if you have a sock *anywhere*, you have one *everywhere.* I pointed out the problems involved, at meta. Nobody cared. Local wikis have, more and more, lost autonomy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the third alternate account and reason. No need for additional disclosure on that one.  Regarding the student account, I don't see any advantage of using that account vs. just anonymous IP edits from the school's IP address.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I will delete all three alternate accounts right now. After thinking about it, I began to concoct all sorts ow ways to abuse such an account.  I could, for example pretend to be the student and do sock puppetry (something I accidentally did on EVERY edit to the user pages!), or I could allow a student to do questionable copyvios that I wouldn't do so as to preserve my reputation.  It occurred to me that if a student doesn't want to register, he/she could do what all other unregistered editors do.  And that is to edit from the IP address.  That would be easy to from a computer lab.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul to Mediawiki:Blockedtext by March 14 2015 14 March 2015
Please change the text here to a new one __

96.5.241.7 (discuss) 17:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

''Originally left at User talk:Dave Braunschweig. Moved here for record of request and any appropriate discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)''
 * The notice contained key words NOEDITSECTION and NOTOC which damaged display of this page and could do so on the talk page where placed. I removed them.
 * The word "can" should be replaced with the better English "may."
 * The IP is school-blocked on en.wiki.
 * This should be very carefully considered. "Account preferences" is irrelevant for IPs. This is not the message we should use. We should review the current message.
 * See the discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Blockedtext. Discussion should continue there. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete this account as it is redundant
Would you please delete my account because it is redundant. I have not used it for a long time and I had even forgotten I had created it! The account I use routinely is Droflet. --Sigman (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not possible to delete or merge accounts, but I've added a redirect from User:Signman to User:Droflet so that anyone looking for you under the old user account will be able to find you. This should continue to work after the account is renamed.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Noted.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * mmm.... The page that is now User:Sigman will become User:Sigman-enwikiversity as part of the rename process. What happens if the new Sigman creates a universal user page? That is coming, too, I think. I think a soft redirect with an explanation might serve as long as the new Sigman consents. We need to be able to merge accounts. I'd say this really should have been done first, it's been needed for a long time, and would have made the SUL universalization a bit easier. However, whatever they did would have problems. When accounts are renamed, there are still all the signatures sitting out there. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I may have complicated the picture unintentionally. I put a speedy delete tag on Sigman per author request. If this is just going to add to the mess, I'll remove it. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the speedy deletion tag. The redirect will correctly lead anyone looking for the old Sigman to User:Droflet, the page will simply become the renamed page. Contributions will all show for the new "-enwikiversity" name. I also placed a redirect from User talk:Sigman to User talk:Droflet. To complete this, I notified Droflet. Thanks, all. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Please edit site notice for Ruy Pugliesi for full custodianship
Only administrators may edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice. It should now have this wikitext:

Discuss and vote on Ruy Pugliesi for full custodianship.

Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The opportunity to edit MediaWiki pages doesn't come up often. Does  want to give this one a try?  It's a two step process.  Edit MediaWiki:Sitenotice and then bump the count in MediaWiki:Sitenotice id.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll give it at try if you haven't already done it. First I will try to figure out what is going on by going to the Sitenotice.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I went to MediaWiki:Sitenotice and found a blank page. How am I supposed to edit it?  Then I went to MediaWiki:Sitenotice id and found a number.  I have no idea what that numbers signifies, although it is obvious from its history page that "bumping" it means to add one.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * See mw:Manual:Interface/Sitenotice. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, noted.

✅ by Guy vandegrift. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! I did not know about Sitenotice id. Makes sense. I will edit MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice id, there is an unanswered question there. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What about MediaWiki:Anonnotice. Do we want to notify non-logged-in users of the vote? They might be registered users. That's a question, not a request. There is no id for that notice, because -- I think -- anons cannot dismiss a site notice. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cultus page
Nothing to do. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)}} Hello,

May I ask you to explain why is Cultus page nor showing on search engines? Here is the correspondence I have received.

On Monday, March 23, 2015 9:52 PM, Keegan Peterzell  wrote:

Hi there.

I have no idea. You can contact the person that left you a message for more information: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Aleksandra  wrote: Hi Keegan, Please let me know why is the Cultus page not available for the search engines. Below is the e-mail we have received. Looking forward to your reply. Aleksandra Arsik MSc Owner Cultus: e-learning portal +38970 209845 onlinecultus@onlinecultus.com www.onlinecultus.com

This message may contain privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please keep it confidential and return it to the sender. Although we have taken steps to minimise the risk of transmitting software viruses, Cultus accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused by computer viruses and would advise you to carry out your own virus checks. Print this e-mail only if necessary.

On Sunday, March 22, 2015 11:15 PM, Goran Kostevski  wrote:

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Aleksandra#The_link_on_your_user_page

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 12:57 AM, Wikiversity  wrote: Abd left a message on your talk page in "The link on your user page". I corrected it and made it an actual link. As a user with a conflict of interest, please be careful about adding links to your site. If you think t... View message View changes To control which emails we send you, check your preferences. Wikimedia Foundation, 149 New Montgomery St., 3rd Fl., San Francisco, CA 94105, USA

- Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Product Wikimedia Foundation

Looking forward to your reply. Aleksandra (from page history: 21:13, 23 March 2015‎ Aleksandra~enwikiversity )


 * There is no Cultus page on this wiki that could be indexed or searched. Based on the content on your user page and talk page, I also recommend not creating a Cultus page.  You are welcome to contribute educational content here at Wikiversity.  Solicitation for external organizations and websites is not accepted.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is correct, Dave. Aleksandra, I allowed your link on your user page because it is possible that there could be some collaboration with Wikiversity. Dave is taking a somewhat stronger position, but he has not removed the link on your user page. It was recommended that you contact me. You haven't. I will assist you if you have questions, please ask on User talk:Abd, as was suggested to you. This was not a matter for administrative attention. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocking of two vandals

 * 88.96.41.174, blanking/vandalizing Operational amplifier.
 * Creationaldickdrawing, inappropriate name, vandalism only account, blanking/vandalizing Operational amplifier.
 * Harassment and Vulgar Insults: Revisions that should be hidden (maybe?) https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Operational_amplifier&curid=8086&diff=1377373&oldid=1377372 thanks --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unblock template up
Please review Category:Requests for unblock. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ by Marshallsumter. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

confirming my membership
i want to upload my files.


 * Welcome to Wikiversity! There is a delay before new users are able to upload files.  In the mean time, I encourage you to become involved in one or more learning projects.  It's better to engage with the community before requesting services from the community.  Also, please sign your posts using ~  Thanks!  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The request was from a user, Mialturki, who was welcomed. The Welcome template provides instructions, including how to ask for help, such as asking the welcoming user. I'm also happy to assist any user, ask on my user talk page. This page is not for ordinary help, it is for help that requires special custodian tools, such as page deletion/undeletion, blocking/unblocking, importing pages from other wikis, page protection/unprotection, or editing protected pages. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

IP block exemption
A display bug may place the view arrow for the hidden content below on the right, in the Administering Wikiversity box. If someone can fix this, great!


 * The above request was somewhat complex, and was simplified, but a custodian personally denied the request, giving arguments, while noting that he would not object to another custodian granting it. To read that, open the collapse.
 * I am requesting two things. First, assign User:Lainerraithe, (contributions) to User group:IP block exemptions. This is highly unlikely to result in serious disruption. The account is not blocked or locked. I think that Special:UserRights can be used for this, and, as I recall, custodians have a rights link from Contributions.
 * Second, add 122.53.156.60 to Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist
 * I am requesting the trust of a custodian, that this will not cause significant damage to Wikiversity, and will certainly have no harmful effects elsewhere, indeed, this may have a protective effect on other wikis. I will monitor activity of the user and IP, and will clean up any messes created, if the user doesn't.

✅ by Marshallsumter. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Nearly identical pages, history merge requested
Parenting/Becoming a Foster Parent and Parenting/How to Become a Foster Parent are duplicates created a few days apart, likely by the same user. The material is a copy of, which is almost certainly the same author as our User:Ccc. I have pinged the user to suggest OTRS verification of right to release. A history merge will put both copies in the same place. This thing has been sitting there sine 2008, so I'm not suggesting rush to delete for copyvio. I haven't done it with these pages, but I have some other pages from the same user, I've blanked the copied content with a link to the blog. The person is active on the blog, so I suspect we will get an answer, and a merge might be nice practice for one of our new custodians... If an explanation is needed, ask.

We should have a maintenance template for history merges. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I used "Special:MergeHistory" and was able to move two entries from the history of Parenting/How to Become a Foster Parent into the history of Parenting/Becoming a Foster Parent, but the rest will not merge. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Mergings are really tricky. If you want me to attempt, nobody should edit the pages.  Also, there is a good chance I will mess it up and have to start over.  Do want me to attempt?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My hunch is that this requires w:Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves. What is scary is that there is an even worse case called w:Wikipedia:How_to_fix_cut-and-paste_moves.  Give me some time to think.  First I need to review Special:MergeHistory--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No rush, guys. This is a not-uncommon situation, we often fix by copying and pasting and deleting one of the pages. Not the best solution. So finding out how to do it is useful. Wikiversity: Learn BY Doing. The pages will not eaisly be unmerged, but there will be little harm from that. I have no idea why they would not fully merge. I'd think that all the edits would be in history and one would need to, then, unhide some. I'll read that Wikipedia page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. The Wikipedia troublesome case isn't. What will happen is that the last version of the collection will be the displayed version, but all the others will be in history. Yes, there can be interleaving. However, the page histories here are not terribly complicated, and we would be otherwise deleting one. The original edit will stand out as made by IP. There were some edits made later to that original page. I intend to review them and manually merge the content, but I'd prefer to do it from history.
 * The suggested solution on wikipedia (do a "normal content merge) is a horrible idea, in some cases, if they are then deleting one of the pages, it conceals history. But any Wikipedia admin can look at deleted pages, so what's the big deal? The page log will show the actions. It could be disconcerting to someone who doesn't understand about merges, but ... it's going to be moot. What will matter is what remains visible when done, and that all contributions exist in history, attributed to whomever made them. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have been practice merging User:Guy_vandegrift/sandbox/01 into User:Guy_vandegrift/sandbox/02. With a couple more practice runs, I think I could give it a try.  Let me know if you want me to attempt.  If someone else wants to volunteer on Parenting/Becoming a Foster Parent and Parenting/How to Become a Foster Parent, go for it!  If you want me to give it a try, let me know.  I will take no action till I hear from someone.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that we are going to need to delete at least one of the pages, and possibly both, I'll encourage you to go ahead. The worst thing that happens is history is interleaved, and if the best version is not the latest, it won't be on top. That's trivial to restore. Each edit still has its own timestamp, all that is missing from the database is the pagename history of the edits.


 * Thinking about this, if the pages were exported before doing the merge, it would be easy to restore them should that be needed. Obviously, export full history. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a try. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC) A frustrating afternoon of moving things around.  I did this once and know I can do it.  Give me more time.  It's important that we learn how to do this!!! --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Don't tell  that I am having this trouble (just kidding--he was pinged).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. A bit ragged, but all's well that ends well, Thanks, Guy! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Disruption by Abd
User:Abd is disrupting the efforts of an instructor trying to prepare Wikiversity for student use. See and. This needs immediate custodian attention. Based on recent hostility by Abd toward me, I can't respond to the issue without seeming already 'involved'. Please address both the user's immediate concerns regarding this content disruption and the general disruptive approach by Abd as noted at. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an appalling request from a custodian from whom I would have expected much more. There was a misunderstanding by this user (the "instructor"). There was nothing there that, if an error or controversial, could not be cleaned up with a few clicks. (And that has been cleaned up, as soon as I knew there was opposition.)


 * Dave's approach here would apparently disallow any editing to resources other than by the creator or very minor wikignoming. This would demolish our neutrality policy, and the development of collaboration on resources. As I have explained to the user,, we allow page ownership under some circumstances. They include attribution, and for neutrality, they may not be top-level mainspace pages, where the title itself may be non-neutral, as an example. But subpages may include links and descriptions of links, to subpages, that attribute and effectively restrict editing. This concept has not been documented, but has, historically, resolved many budding content disputes. I can show this, and will, when we are ready to discuss the organizational principles.


 * I have explained to the user that they may revert any edit, at least to establish an objection to it. Then we discuss and work out consensus.


 * Dave is free to discuss anything, involvement or not, so his recusal indicates he was thinking of using tools. How? Considering an opposed edit "content disruption" is a radical misunderstanding of basic wiki process.
 * Custodians have no special authority over content, but over behavior. So far, the most upset person around here is Dave, and he has not been specific with his concerns, not in any way that I can understand. I am seeing that a WV:Custodian feedback filing may be necessary. I do not rush into these things, because they do not build Wikiversity. Something is broken here, though. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think there are several points here: I feel that this constitutes harassment. I have full confidence for Dave Braunschweig to deal with this. However Abd has just now intervened here. The "conflict" he mentions is something which he has fabricated, and should be considered as part of campaign to deter Dave from taking action. I have already requested guidance from Jtneill in how to deal with Abd. Since then his disruptive behaviour has got significantly worse. As I shall be working with User:Dx as I shall be attending the same conference as my fellow user, I would ask someone else to deal with this matter. I have also alerted User_talk:Jtneill that the situation is deteriorating.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 18:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I do not think that Dave should step back from involvement here. Please see Colloquium. I feel that Abd's claim that Dave had an axe to grind is completely inappropriate. He may feel that by abusing a Custodian who is tactfully reminding of how he should behave, this can be a simple tactic to avoid anyone dealing with him. I have complete confidence in Dave dealing with this issue. I think the suggestion that Dave is "the most upset person around here" is laughable.
 * 2) As Abd is a longterm editor who never tires of delivering long - sometimes over-long - explanations about his expertise in wikis, yet he makes edits such as this. At this point the assumption of good faith becomes untenable. Likewise this edit on another persons userspace: here
 * I need to clarify that I did not claim that Dave "had an axe to grind." Asking for community clarification of an issue is not "abusing a Custodian." Yes, one could use that tactic, but it wasn't a tactic. This is all highly uncivil accusation from Leutha, who, as a probationary custodian, should, in theory, be highly amenable to advice, etc. Instead, he's tossing gasoline on the fire. As to "most upset person around here," that was inappropriate here, it was not about this request, so I'll strike it. It was, however, a reference to Dave's claims about me, calling my Colloquium request for Community attention "unnecessary drama, hysteria, and personal attack," as well as the implication of an upset third-party user (which did not appear to be the case as of the time of my writing that). My impression of Dave's state of mind has been confirmed, though, by his response to to an attempt to work this out. This is not the place to argue that such contacts, where possible, can be highly effective in resolving personal disputes, and have been used by at least one 'crat here. The problem was not the conversation, it was removing decision-making to that venue, ignoring the welfare of the wiki. Sure, we could do it on-wiki, if it works, Increasing understanding among users is not a problem. Custodian are not judges, with an obligation of "no private communication." They are much more like police, who routinely engage in private conversations with citizens. When emotional conflicts are involved, on-wiki frequently fails, and Dave doesn't want to do it on-wiki, either. So ... the click ticks, the hands of time move on. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We should focus on the issues before us, not on whether people are being reasonable or unreasonable. Here are the issues:
 * The canvassing question involved whether images on Wikiversity that have been transferred to commons should be deleted. All the harm goes away if we assume good faith on both parts:  Abd was not trying to tilt the vote, and Dave Braunschweig was not trying to intimidate.
 * Dx was not happy with some of the page moves. If Dx keeps new page creations to a minimum, we can move pages after they have been developed.  But if Dx wants  new pages, Dx needs to consult with the people who monitor namespace (I am not one of these people).  Above all, we want to make Dx feel welcome.
 * Abd recently made a bad edit on Art_movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism. We all make bad edits, and Abd made no effort to restore the bad edit after it was reverted.  Although Dx doesn't "own" the page, we should let them edit uninterrupted for a while.  Of this I am also guilty -- in the past, my edits on a page I did not help create always contained an invitation to revert without hesitation, but for some reason I did not follow that practice on Art_movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism.   All of us need to let Dx take the lead here.
 * Finally, it would help if the long statements by Abd were shorter. Perhaps write and link to userspace with only succinct summaries on talk pages?
 * In summary, we need to (1) decide whether images on both Wikiversity and Commons should be automatically deleted, doing so in a way that invites input from everybody. (2-3) Let Dx develop pages on art movements, unless Dx wants to create more pages, in which case the issue should be discussed in a way that makes Dx feel welcome.  (4) We need less talk about behavior and policy, and more writing of content. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked and didn't see the "bad edit" to what is now Art_movements/Neoism. Would you mind diffing it? I do make lots of mistakes, thanks for understanding that, but I prefer to learn from them, which would require knowing WTF it was! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Guy. Each issue can be addressed, and there was nothing that could not be addressed without an RCA filing. I complained about one custodian action (a warning, which is on the edge, because anyone may warn, but warnings by custodians can carry an appearance of impending action), and not here. Is there any specific request here? Is dispute resolution -- as distinct from blocking -- the province of custodians exclusively? What tool use is suggested here? I will be setting up process as needed to address each issue, and anyone can do that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See User:Abd/Community Review/Abd. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * both guy and abd are insisting on using avant gatde as a category to organize the art practices and movements resources despite me repeatedly explaining why I think this is counter productive. I will do so again. In order to use this term I would have to also distinguish it from modernism. This maybe useful to art history resources. Not for art practice. You will notice that the forat resource I have developed and Leutha helped, was the "what is art" page. All terms need defining. Art is studied in most schools from primary to university. It is a necessary term. Avant grade is not. Furthermore it is, as even abd has admitted, understood differently in different domains eg music, literature, art. So where for example metagraphy or psychogeograpphy could be linked from literature or geography as well as art, the avant-gatde category would only hinder this. In order to use avant-gatde i would need to define it and also define Modernism( modern art and therefore also postmodernism) as there is a historical cross over and link between these and i would further have to defend and develop defunitions with studebts who are new to these topics. I request both abd and guy revert the extensive changes they have made to my work which are disruptive and done without discussion or indeed despite my input into their discussions Dx (discuss • contribs) 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "insisting on using Avant-Garde as a category." It was a way of organizing content. I did not invent the categorization, it's from Wikipedia and from Dx's own editing. There is a basic misunderstanding here of how wikis work. I don't make any changes I consider disruptive. Nor do I revert all my changes just because someone asks me to. I consider it. Dx has the same power to revert changes as I do, and can do so much more quickly than complaining. As soon as your intention became clear, I worked to implement it. But there are some changes you are making that have an impact on Wikiversity neutrality. Further, you are using inflammatory language, calling good-faith changes "vandalism," for example. You are new and we will forgive much. I advise learning a bit faster, though, because you are creating opposition. I know how to undo the page moves, and I routinely do that. But it's work, and I've been substantially de-motivated here. I have no obligation to undo anything. I've already put many hours into that set of resources, which were basically stubs, languishing. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My so-called "contributions" are gone, except for the template that I placed at the top of Art movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism.   do you want that removed?  It's probably not needed any more, but you should decide.


 * Moving and changing pagenames is a tiny bit more complicated than reverting edits. Dx approached me about the subpage structure about a week ago, and my advice (which I now regret) was to let things stand until the pages are developed.  Given all the misunderstanding, I suggest we make the page structure exactly as Dx wishes, and do it when Dx wishes.  A few reasonable restrictions should apply.  For example, I routinely create over 30 pages so that students can work simultaneously on a single project.  Those things need to be subpages.  I like to keep them in my sandbox so they can be reused by other students in my other courses without deleting or modifying namespace in any way. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * and now ABD is lying about me on guy's talk page suggesting i am lying about my internet access and claiming i had no problem with the avant-garde category until Leitha did. This is false. I asked for clarificatyion from guy as to what his proposed change was. and also I did not approach you, guy - you started making changes to the course without discussion with me - you and ABD decided between you to use the avant-garde as an organising principle. I then made my thoughts clear about why avant-garde was a problematic concept to introduce into this course. I did indeed welcome your input initially but it has just become disruptive because neither you nor abd will discuss things before making changes. i would like the avant-garde subpage structure removed altogether. there can then be pages for avant-garde, modernism etc in mainspace that can then link to other departments like literature, music etc and also categories for them. but i do not think it is useful to have avant-garde as a subpag3e of art and then art movements and art practices as a subpage of that. how many more times must i make this case before you actually answer it? also i have never asked for page protection just asked ABD not to write discussions on a resource page. Dx (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no clue about what Dx means by "lying." Remember, when I used avant-garde as an organizing category, you had created that yourself, with the resource. You wrote: "Do u think we should move all pages to a new mainspace page called Avant-garde studies and then make all movements and practices as sub pages of this mainspace page?" Sure, it was a question. But it looked like support.


 * Some changes should be discussed first, if controversy is expected. I did not expect controversy here. I was attempting to assist. The first sign I had that someone had serious objections was from Leutha, not from you, and then discussion began of certain changes. Leutha only gave generalities, not specifics, so I did go ahead with several moves to Art practices subspace.


 * Wikipedia has explicit categorization of "Avant-Garde art movements", and thus Avant-Garde is appropriate here as a subpage of Art movements. Absolutely, there are some issues. (For starters, everyone calls their movement "Avant Garde" at the start. Nobody classifies their ideas as Tired, Worn-out BS. Hence that discussion, a bas l'avant-garde!) The issues can be worked out, but when discussion becomes hostile, it all becomes difficult. I did not see you as hostile at the beginning. You became that way. I think someone led you that way, encouraged it. But you know the truth about your experience.


 * Okay, the source of "lying." I did not say she was lying. This is what I wrote:
 * The user, on her talk page, has no settled internet access, claims to be using libraries and mobile phone.
 * This was chatty with Guy. My syntax is garbled. it should have been:
 * The user has no settled internet access, and claims, on her talk page, to be using libraries and mobile phone.
 * This is just a fact, easily verifiable. My use of the word "claim" did not indicate doubt, only fact. I did not state that you actually were only using libraries and mobile phone, for a number of reasons. For starters, it would convert the past into the present; this could have changed. But once someone decides that another is an enemy or hostile, words like that can be interpreted as hostile. This is a common wiki problem, the high-bandwidth information about the other, available in person and to some extent with voice, is almost entirely missing, when there is only text.
 * This is her present user talk page, showing the statement about access. From this, as well, the basic structure I set up appears to be accepted, all except for that Avant-Garde move, which was only a detail, and not that important. However, her actual editing is still spreading resources out in mainspace, and she just moved one back to mainspace, I have no idea why. (Metagraphy. I had requested that be merged with the new version she had created as Art practices/Metagraphy. She removed the merge tag.
 * Some of the mainspace pages, then, may end up being deleted, if nobody researches the history, or if she insists on non-neutral content. The biggest current issue is with the Art movements page. More eyeballs are appreciated. WV:RCA is not for discussing resource content, as such, this is a page to Request Custodian Action. Like "official warnings" that precede blocking, or actual blocking. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

When I said "you approached me" I meant "you brought up the subject" (after I asked you if you needed my help). All I can do is move pages. Do you want me to move Art movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism to Neoism? If so, when? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, any of us can move pages. What a custodian can do is handle special cases: if a move target already exists, they can move it out of the way, or just delete it, so that a page can be moved there. They can merge history if forks have developed. And they can move an entire page structure with a single command that will rename all subpages with the moved page. The rest of us can ask for this in ways that are efficient. When I want a page deleted, it usually happens within hours. If the deletion isn't controversial, it's very quick and easy for the custodian. And this is a wiki, mistakes can be fixed, easily. So instead of getting upset, I recommend asking for what you want, and being clear and specific about it. I'm seeing Dx, now, making certain changes without discussion. Dx, as a result of all this, is thinking of a mainspace page as her property, that she has the exclusive right to determine how the page looks. This is a mainspace page for which there is a corresponding Wikipedia article, i.e., Art movements. This creates neutrality problems and is one more piece on the pile that inhibits extensive collaboration and cross-linking between Wikiversity and Wikipedia. Those are issues I've been working on for years. I will accord her very high freedom, but that gets more difficult when a page is at the top level.
 * She might have noticed that she had at least one and maybe more than one mainspace page deleted. That easily happens with stand-alone pages, even if they are linked or categorized. Neoism had been prodded, with an expired prod, for a long time. We have a broken prod process, it's one thing I'm working on. By our deletion guideline, that page should have been deleted! But more often, when we see this, we will research and move the page so that it will not be exposed to deletion. As soon as I saw the issue, I saw the user histories, I read up on the topics, etc., and when it appeared that an organizing principle was available, I did it. This is another aspect of "wiki."
 * If you see something to do, do it, because (1) if it's a problem it can be fixed, and (2) if you don't, good chance you will never come back to it. "Strike while the fire is hot." I do not take being reverted as hostile, until and unless there are edit summaries that are hostile. You will see that I rarely even approach revert warring. I explain my edits. Notice, above, that these explanations become a charge against me.
 * There are many resources on Wikiversity where neutrality and quality have been neglected. That doesn't make it okay. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Reading your words "I would like the the avant-garde subpage struture removed altoether", it seems you have already answered my question. I will move it and urge EVERYBODY to keep it there until things calm down.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * my move log for all actions after August 28 till now. That last move was of a page created in mainspace by Leutha, totally inappropriately (among other things, violating site license). The move target has been deleted because Guy then moved it to his own user space, totally okay. It was of peripheral relevance to Neoism. Some interesting learning opportunities in the discussion, which can be found by following the redlinked move target.
 * The moves on August 31 were discussed. From the comment on User talk:Dx, that was accepted by her. The only obstacle was Leutha.
 * Leutha is a probationary custodian. If our policy were being followed, that would probably have been terminated four years ago. The problem was not any abusive actions, not back then. The problem was inaction. This seems to be the entire corpus. 17 deletions (noncontroversial as far as I have seen) in four years. What I've seen now, in the last few days, has convinced me that Leutha is unqualified, has no understanding of Wikiversity traditions, and the worst of it is a demonstration that he does not understand recusal practice, in the advice he gave Dave, above. Dave does understand recusal, and has been careful about it. I have issues with Dave, but that's not one of them. Mostly, the issues with Dave are related to his being one of our most active custodians ever, and what then happens to custodians who do that. What is missing is community support. It shouldn't be so hard. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do I have permission to simplify the talk page to Neoism by hiding all unnecessary and previous discussion? Once hidden, it takes a simple click of the mouse to view it.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to archive the discussion and i couldn't find the old archived material when i tried to look for it. its not an obvious click of the mouse. but many thanks for agreeing to get rid of the avant-garde subpage structure. Dx (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dx. There was no archive, that's why you couldn't see it! Guy, a talk page with more than one user participating is a collective activity, and we do not allow ownership of Talk pages, only resources. So this would not be up to Dx. Generally, if Dx wants to, she can ignore the discussion on Talk, unless someone refers to it in an edit summary or the like.
 * It is unusual to have a talk page archive for a resource page like this, but ... you want it, you got it. I collapsed resolved discussions as I'd suggested, and have set up a relatively standard archiving process there, archiving some some that were clearly closed (in my opinion). The rest can be closed if there is no objection, and, in fact, everything I did was designed to be transparent and easily reversed. To be safe, closure should not be followed immediately by archiving, that is often disruptive, in my experience. Give time for someone to object to the closure! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Abd about not closing the discussion for a while. Act fast, but close slowly so all parties concerned have time to sleep on it. : You might want to past this link on to one of your pages.  It shows the Art movement subpages

Art movement subpages

Yours truly, --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My normal standard is 10 days minimum before making a more difficult-to-reverse change, i.e., moving the content to an Archive page. The reason? Some people follow Wikiversity on a weekly basis, and then I add three days for them to think about it in addition. Exceptions could involve an expectation of no controversy. Usually, archiving is not any kind of emergency. It is sometimes used on Wikipedia, though, to shut people up. Bad idea. There are many other ways to handle possible problems. When people object to detailed comments from me, sometimes I archive them to history, with an explicit link and a very brief summary, It's a nice trick to know. What's been funny to watch was people who objected to detailed comments, then reverted archiving to history. The obvious goal: make Abd look bad. Also, many users read noticeboards and the like in wikitext, from diffs, which makes a comment with evidence, even if carefully formatted for readability, look like a crazy wall of text! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I again ask for custodian intervention into this matter. Per Guy vandegrift above, 'We need less talk about behavior and policy, and more writing of content.'. Abd continues to make disparaging remarks against multiple users. These personal attacks constitute persistent harassment and must stop. See and  for recent examples. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to toss in my two cents, but this is it. I've only looked at a couple contributions by user Dx and the first thing I saw was incorrect changes without discussion to Art movements by others. My suggestion is discuss your suggestions first on the Discuss page and let the resource creator comment there. Try to reach consensus before changing the resource. Here's the other penny: everybody but user Dx, or user Karenkarnak out of the pool with respect to resources created by this user! Put your suggestions on the Discuss page first and please hash it out there. Just a suggestion but if you want you can use or  in  –  for example. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes! I would go absolutely insane if somebody started editing one of my major projects (e.g. Physics equations) without checking with me.  And, nobody has ever done it!  I know it is not my page, but it is definitely my "project".  I was unaware that anybody was actively editing  Neoism when I started to play  with it.  Had I been more careful, I would have seen that Neoism is part of a bigger project.  While not making excuses, I think User:Abd and I misinterpreted the format.  We are accustomed to physics pages that are packed with information.  Neoism and its associated pages are about art, and art is about subjective experiences.  Rooms in art galleries are full of space.  Physics labs are full of equipment. I thought I was editing a nearly empty page.  Sorry.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy, I hope you know what do do if that happens, without going crazy! It might be a useful exercise to describe it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that we know that the user experienced support as disruptive, any changes I make will be discussed first. I did not misinterpret the format, though, I knew the pages were all linked, I had studied the user history and all that, and had researched the topic on Wikipedia and elsewhere. That, in fact, is why I moved pages to be subpages of Art practices and Art movements, and the user had explictly described her work as being on that. The user has now acknowledged that my intention was support, and just asked for my advice..


 * Meanwhile, this sequence has demonstrated that we have two custodians who, instead of helping find consensus and resolve possible disputes, tossed gasoline on them. This cannot be resolved here. I am always open to warning, even from Dave. If I continue with a specific activity after being warned, I may then be blocked as necessary (but not by Dave, Dave is now involved, and one issuing a warning might or might not be involved, that's complicated, I tried to address this in policies, but it was opposed, way back). What does not work is vague warning, like, "don't be disruptive." I was warned for canvassing. Because I know what canvassing is, and did not canvass, I asked for clarification on the Colloquium. This was called personal attack.


 * Above, Dave refers to "continues to make disparaging remarks against multiple users." He is not specific, that is, he provides links to long discussions without specifying what is a problem. However, it's fairly clear what he is talking about, overall. He is mostly talking about my identification of some custodial issues.


 * So custodial action is required for allegedly "disparaging comments" of mine, but clearly hostile personal attacks on me by others, treating relatively minor, easily resolved conflict, as an emergency, in our recent community conversation, are ignored. That's lack of balance. There are procedures for addressing issues. There are known processes, and they are being bypassed here. It starts with something simple: a clear warning on a user talk page. Not accusations on WV:RCA. If there is an emergency, I'd hope Dave knows how to handle that. Recusal policy does not prevent him from warning, as long as he does not personally threaten, and makes that clear.


 * User:Dave Braunschweig appears, to me, to have lost balance. This is unexpected, I've seen him retain his cool under severe attack, far more intense than anything I've written. I suspect it's burnout, for Dave has been our most active custodian, for a long time. Now, is that a "disparaging comment"? It is essential that custodians be open to criticism. Dave knew that, used to invite it. If it's burnout, it can be addressed, it is actually not difficult, but if it is not acknowledged as a possibility, it can get very difficult. I've seen many admins and functionaries go through this. It got ugly. If it is something else, it can be discussed and causes identified. But if it cannot be discussed, it is a "probably almost certain future" -- a term in my training -- that disruption and damage increase. Even if everything Dave did was otherwise perfect.


 * User:Jtneill has been a mentor for many, including me. He's been inattentive to mentees and this has definitely led to major disruption. (I.e., if the mentee was disruptive, James did not restrain the mentee, and if the mentee was was standing for and serving the community, he did not support his mentee. And this became very obvious.) Right now, he has a mentee practically begging him for advice. No response.


 * James, like all of us, is a volunteer, he is not obligated to be always attentive, he can have a life. However, if persistent, this is not compatible with being a mentor. James is active, he must be seeing the edits to his User talk page. From long-term review of his mentorships, I conclude that he's non-plussed by conflict, he doesn't know what to do with it. I will be making specific suggestions for how to handle this.


 * and then there would be User:Leutha. Probationary custodian since 2011. Mentor, Jtneill. Extremely low use of tools, I see only 17 logged admin actions, all deletions in four years. I'm seeing many signs, including his comments above about Dave's very proper recusal, that show unsuitability for the position of custodian. Leutha has not abused tools, so there is no emergency. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * yes and I asked for your advice to give u the benefit of the doubt but the only advice you gave was to reiterate your position on subpages and then went on to make disparaging and threatening remarks about another user who has been nothing but helpful! And now you are jumping to wrong conclusions again on the situography talk page..!! Dx (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not editing those resources, now, and, yes, I gave you advice. If someone wants to study what happened in this last interchange, they are welcome, this is it. Warning: it's on my User talk page, and long. It's obvious that I have a disagreement about Wikiversity organization and procedures and how to create resources, with a probationary custodian, who has relatively low experience here, who should be fully open to criticism. That is essential for all custodians, but especially probationary ones. You may perceive him as helpful, and I'm sure that's his intention. He's now invented a new procedure, that contradicts basic wiki philosophy and existing formal or defacto policies, and that I doubt the community will approve, and he just recommended it to you. See Template:Managed research project, which I edited with a warning and explained on the attached Talk page.


 * If you don't want my advice, please don't ask for it, okay?


 * As to the situation on Talk:Situography: You spell the name in the resource itself as Situgraphy, and that is how you originally linked to it, and the original page you created was Situgraphy. That is what it is called on Wikipedia. Yes, situography can be found on the internet (and there is an early essay using that term), so, as soon as I saw your "wrong" comment, I realized you may have intended the new name to be that.


 * However, then, understand that your prior edits set up a confusion, and you did not explain the change, at all. I now see that today you changed the link on Art practices from Situgraphy to Situography. I also see that you answered my comment on Talk:Situography that you call "jumping to a wrong conclusion." You set up that conclusion by your behavior. Then you ask for us to "bear with you." Fine. However, it's a two-way street, so, please bear with us.


 * You want others to discuss edits first. We are not restricting you like that, but I'll suggest that explaining edits in edit summaries is basic and even more important. You created a double redirect, Situgraphy, your original name, now redirects to Art practices/Situgrahy, which you explicitly accepted, and now to Situography, when a simple edit summary saying "prefer this name" would have avoided Guy's confusion and mine. None of this is creating your content, none of it was necessary for content. Not my problem. I didn't come here with a complaint about you, nor was I even close to such. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pings alerting me to this "conflict". From a quick review, Abd is correct to conclude that I'm somewhat "non-plussed". Abd, if folks are not appreciating your well-intended help, then I suggest just leaving it alone and letting them get on with creating content. I didn't see any inappropriate content being added? Leutha, in my experience, Abd is thoughtful and well-intentioned but can be somewhat tendentious in his procedural commentary and there is a real risk in dealing with his comments of spending IMHO too long on talk/admin commentary and too little on content creation. So, my advice is to not allow this to derail your content development efforts. I am not saying ignore feedback (respond politely and in good faith). If there is a specific aspect that I've missed and someone thinks it warrants my opinion, feel free to let me know. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, James, I was hoping you would respond. As soon as I saw that the user -- who initially appreciated help -- was reacting negatively, I acted to support her wishes, which were not, at first, clear. There are other issues ("aspects") but this is an RCA request, not a "whatever" request. Other issues will be addressed elsewhere, as appropriate --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

From No personal attacks, "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". While it is certainly possible for me to add quotes here, it would simply repeat and further the attacks to do so. I will not disparage other users in this manner. The comments on contributors, their capabilities, their state of mind, etc. must stop. Leutha, Dx, James, SB Johnny, and I have all been recent subjects of these personal attacks. It stops now. I will not allow the comments to continue toward other users. I sincerely hope others will not allow them to continue in my direction, but I'm not opposed to handling it myself if that becomes necessary. As Guy encouraged several days ago, we need to move on from this and get back to writing content. I sincerely hope that Abd will join in that effort. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are forbidden because if an evil person does a good thing, it's still a good thing.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's worth reading w:Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Notice: Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack.


 * Discussion of custodian behavior is particularly necessary. And I haven't noticed our privileged users holding back from discussing my behavior, and I'm not a custodian. In any case, all through this, I've continued to focus on content development, improvement, and management. However, Wikiversity is for learning by doing, and we do not give adequate attention to learning how to manage a wiki. We do not guide our custodians. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleting pages
There are now 11 speedy delete requests, plus one that resides on a personal list, created because I have placed a temporary moratorium on deletions until a policy can be established. I don't see how this should be a lengthy debate. It's basically a "clean desk" versus "dirty desk" choice. We need to strike a balance that suits most people.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The queue was cleared by Marshall. He took 22 minutes to handle 15 deletions. I'd guess he was being careful. Several necessary checks take a little time: "What links here," page history. For a speedy request, it should be very quick. Meanwhile, we have a request for edit under protection which has been standing for about 12 days. I hope custodians are using the request box at the top left of this page. It shows the count in categories for speedy requests (for technical reasons, the cache should be purged, or the display can be obsolete, and there is a button for that).
 * (The request for edit under protection is in a section and the requested edit is very simple and explicit. There is other discussion on that page about changing the way we do Proposed deletions. That should not postpone the request. Or maybe that page should be unprotected.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's vote tentatively so we can know when to close the discussion
Do you support the proposition that requests to undelete should only be fulfilled if the lost content is plausibly necessary in order to develop a good resource? If you vote tentatively, please strike "tentative" ( tentative when you are ready.  If you want to change the wording, please state so.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Changed vote for a number of reasons: sloppy wording, the fact that the community is not properly involved, and finally, I can effectively implement an equivalent policy informally; when in doubt I will use the prod template. tentatively. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Origninal post Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 10:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

tentatively. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

absence of necessity is not a speedy deletion reason, therefore necessity is not required for undeletion. It is common practice on Wikiversity to undelete pages, even useless ones, for discussion other reasons, generally upon request. The proposal, if implemented, would radically change our guideline, and this is not the place to accomplish that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

One problem I've noticed with qualifying words is their qualitativeness: for example, "plausibly necessary in order to develop a good resource". I accidentally deleted Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion meaning instead to delete the last deletion request. I immediately restored the category. The unintentioned deletion probably would not have qualified as "plausibly necessary in order to develop a good resource", as such I believe we should be much more careful about our wording or leave things as they are. I've been reading the entries and also recall that Jtneill has allowed Abd to get involved in Wikiversity governance and such for a couple of years now. I believe if anyone has a problem with a deletion or an undeletion it should be discussed at the Colloquium for community input, in tentative agreement with Dave. We have thirteen active custodians (of which are our two active bureaucrats). I believe trying to alter current custom should be on the Colloquium not here. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. My wording was sloppy.  I will now change my vote.  Thanks for catching that.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm not sure this is the proper forum for this discussion, as it should have community participation. But the question being asked, as I understand it, is do users have a right to see history on deleted pages on demand, or are we focusing on content alone, and asking users to trust custodians regarding the reason for the deletion. That presents a tough choice, with both sides leaving potential for abuse. Allowing custodians to delete without review can be problematic. Allowing users to harass custodians on demand and increase workload is also problematic.

But I think perhaps there is a third position, slightly more toward the middle. Undeletes should be fulfilled when there is clear value in doing so. The value could be in the content. The value could also be in the history, but a much more effective case must be made as to why the history restore adds value when the content does not. Undeletes do not need to be automatic, as that option is currently being abused and having a net negative effect on Wikiversity.

I want to also address the issue that has led to this discussion. The real issue that I believe raised this question is that the current environment has resulted in a situation in which no custodian is willing to act custodially, because the harassment they are experiencing or fear isn't worth the effort. This is a clear net negative effect on Wikiversity, and has a different solution.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dave, I agree that a "situation" has developed, but not that "no custodian is willing to act custodially." if you are going to address this, please document the "situation," the "harassment" and "fear." Harassment how and fear of what? This is not the page for that. If a user harasses another, they may properly be warned and blocked if it continues. If a custodian sees this, and has a recusal obligation, they may come here with a request that another custodian handle this (or may block, declaring an emergency and coming here for immediate review). If a user is persistently disruptive, a WV:Community Review can be filed, but, be aware, both an RCA request and a CR can be highly disruptive, i.e., will spend much user time and will not develop resources.


 * No custodian action is "automatic." It is the same as with deletion, no deletion is "automatic." However, many do not need to be discussed. There is an allegation of abuse here, which would imply a pattern of actions that cause harm. I made two undeletion requests, using WV:DR. Is something wrong with either of these? I have, over time, made a number of deletion requests directly of the deleting custodian, and these have always been granted. The problem is?


 * What may not be realized by our newer custodians is that it is normal to undelete a page in order to review it for WV:DR. If there is no need for discussion, DR should not be necessary. So then what are the other options? We have followed the common Wikipedia practice -- it is actually policy, I think -- of requesting undeletion of the deleting administrator. I did this, on Wikipedia, both with speedy deleted pages and pages actually closed as delete through a discussion. The request was never refused, as far as I recall. There was never any disruption over it or admin claiming I was harassing him or her. This is totally routine and should not cause "fear" or "stress." Something else is going on here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I also have been looking for a third way and began to think about a policy that every page up for speedy deletion must remain there for 3 days before deletion. This gives people time to move the page into user space.  If a page is deleted prematurely and the request comes too late, it would normally be denied.  If a page is deleted prematurely and and the request is made before 3 days elapse, the request to undelete would be granted.  This would make things easy if the custodian deleted all speedy deletes every 2 weeks, since the fraction of premature deletes would be 3/14, or 21%.  There are plausible variations of this:  If the delay is 1-week, I could make a permalink of the deletions list and come back in exactly one week and know which ones to delete.  But we do need to delete.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy, you are thinking of creating rules to solve non-existent problems. We do not have any deluge of inappropriate deletions, nor of undeletion requests. There is no need to wait any particular length of time to speedy delete, as long as undeletion is easy. If a page on my watchlist is deleted, I get an email.
 * I came across several instances recently of pages I wanted to see. In every case there was some value found though not necessarily visible without research. Each case was different. Those could be discussed, if needed. In no case was harm caused by undeletion. The process you suggest, Guy, flat-out would not work, it would increase the necessary labor for clean-up, all to avoid what seems to be a Terrible Thing, an occasional undeletion request. Thousands upon thousands of pages are deleted. How many are undeleted from a request? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I, too, have held back in the current climate from deleting anything. I agree that we need to formulate a policy somewhere in the middle ground, particularly as regards the history. I do not see the point in undeleting pages with no useful content sometimes as long as three years later, which could potentially include a large number of deleted pages. Three days for speedy deletion seems OK to me. The template should be developed to show date. I also think there should be a limitation as regards how far in the past an undelete request can go.Leutha (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Leutha is a probationary custodian from 2011 whose mentor was not "ready to recommend" for permanent based on inactivity. When I found he was probationary, I reviewed his logs, standard in monitoring how probationary custodians are doing. No logged actions except for a handful of deletions. When I looked, there were 12 deletions total, in four years. He has now, in the last two weeks, deleted 6 more pages, one requested by me, and one apparently his own page in mainspace. So that he ascribes his "holding back" to the "current climate" is preposterous.


 * (For perspective, my own deletion log shows, from a far shorter period, about 600 pages. Dave's shows over 8900 pages. How many undeletion requests? Marshall has 718. Guy has 364.


 * Any wiki action, repeated abusively, could be a problem. Yes, we sure have a lot of deleted pages! I could create a request to undelete every one of them on WV:RFD, if I wanted to experience the community yelling at me, and maybe a block or ban. (Or someone would speedy close it as preposterous.) The proposal being worked on would allow use of an undelete template. If someone started dropping those on pages faster than custodians could keep up, creating a backlog, they'd probably be asked to stop (even if the reasons were sound: if massive work is involved, there should be a discussion first).


 * A problem is being imagined as "potential," based on an idea of a highly disruptive user, and it is that reactive thinking that is causing problems. An undelete template would be no more "automatic undelete" than a delete template is "automatic delete." To get a page deleted, I need to convince a custodian to do it, and the same with undelete. If I start speedy tagging a lot of pages where the result is wasted time, again, I'd be warned. However, I can't recall a deletion template that I've placed that has been declined, and my "deleted contributions" stand at 1380. The vast majority of those would be edits placing speedy deletion tags. -Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict with above) I find it very odd that a single undeletion request, made civilly in a completely normal way, taking less than a minute to action, would create a holding back from deletion. An undeletion request is not a claim of error, and a deleting custodian has no obligation to "defend" the deletion, and, indeed, is well-advised to avoid that.


 * If someone places a speedy deletion tag on a resource, it is established that any user may remove it, and, unless the removal is clearly disruptive, to delete the page then requires a deletion discussion at WV:DR. There is, in this process, no necessity for a custodian to decide about "necessity," or to assess the plausibility of a user reason. To think that this is required will generate controversy. WV:Deletions is our guideline, approved as such in 2012 with the understanding that it needed more work. The guideline strongly recommends avoiding deletion where any possible use or alternate method of handing a page can be found.


 * So to review our very simple actual process, with one change being under development:


 * The default for all Wikiversity pages is Keep. If there is no consensus for deletion, the page is kept.
 * Any user may nominate any page for deletion, by placing Template:delete on the page. A reason should be given for deletion, but there is no specific limit on "reasons."
 * Any user may remove the template from the page. No reason for removal is necessary, but is desirable (in the edit summary).
 * Any custodian may delete a tagged page, at their own discretion. The deletion guideline is just that: a general statement of the kinds of deletions and practices that ordinarily will enjoy consensus. It is not a rigid or inflexible policy. Custodians, seeing a deletion tag have, as mentioned in the guideline, many other options.
 * Any user may request undeletion of a deleted page (I'm working on process allowing the use of a tag for this, based on recent discussions).
 * Any custodian may undelete. (difference between this and sometimes-actual-practice is described below.)
 * Any user not satisfied with results obtained through ad-hoc request (i.e., deletion or undeletion) may file a request on WV:RFD.
 * If a discussion, having been given adequate time, shows a Delete result, then the page may be deleted by any custodian "per RFD."
 * Normally, absent strong reason otherwise, a deleted page will be undeleted for discussion, with an undeletion request, so that the community may see the page.


 * All custodian actions should be based on consensus or in expectation of consensus. It is a natural part of the wiki system that users may disagree with custodian actions, and that custodians may disagree with each other. If a custodian is actually offended by a page, the custodian need not undelete it, and may, further, decline to discuss it. Declining to discuss is a legitimate response. Ignoring it is a legitimate response. Refusing is a legitimate response, and acting is also legitimate. The custodian is free. No custodian is obligated to clean up the deletion queue. Given that cleaning it up (at this moment) can be accomplished in as little as five minutes, it is just not a big deal.


 * There has been a tradition that a deleting custodian would be asked about undeletion, which is related to the discouragement of wheel-warring. In the case of deletion/undeletion, this creates unnecessary discussion, and there was a sense in a recent undeletion request that asking was not necessary, and maybe not even desirable. I agree. Absent a note requesting discussion, this is not necessary. However, it is less disruptive than going to WV:DR to create a discussion, if discussion is not needed.


 * If a custodian deletes a page that is offensive, if the custodian has strong opposition to undeletion, they may express that with the deletion. (Common practice with blocks on en.wiki.) Absent that, we may assume that the custodian was just sweeping up the floor, clearing out the deletion queue, and that it is not that important. Hence the work I'm doing on an undeletion template and process for that. Without that template, undeletion must be discussed in some way (request to deleting custodian, request to another custodian, request here, or request on RFD), which creates a bias toward deletion, and frustration on the part of a custodian who deleted a page merely "to clean up the desk.' I'd think the "desk" is user space, not mainspace; in mainspace if a custodian deletes a page that has (perhaps, as examples) been part of a resource creation process, that has incoming links present or in history, any other user may say, "No, please, don't trash that." A student or professor at a university should not have to argue with a custodian! There need be no conflict over this. To say more would require going into specifics, and this is not the page for that, see Wikiversity talk:Deletions. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we saw no rational reason to undelete a simple template and article on India with no content. Don't take it personally.  I don't think you were trying to harass anybody.  In fact I know you weren't trying to harass anybody. But doing something for absolutely no reason makes no sense.


 * Also, this is why we delete: Click the first link on https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?search=bell%27s&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. You are literally correct: "doing something for no reason makes no sense." However, it was not the case that there was "no reason." I had a reason, for both, and so did the custodian who undeleted. You didn't see it, and that demonstrates that, for you, "user request" is not a "reason." That template that I requested be undeleted was, of course, an undeletion template. It was created by a user who had been a permanent custodian here. Maybe it was worth looking at! It was deleted with an argument against usage, not against existence. It could have been edited to make it useful. Again, why should I have to argue and convince for a simple undeletion, clearly harmless?
 * As to that link you gave, Goy, it demonstrates what? You made a mistake editing a page? This is not why we delete, at all. Mistakes can be fixed. In this case, you filled recent changes with a big red flag.. My comment was completely sincere. Now, you might want to delete to hide a mistake. Bad Idea! Why is this here? I'll say why. We have something to learn about deletion, undeletion, guidelines and policy, and consensus. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment, Guy. I, too originally saw no rationale for the undeletion request. As I remarked here, I originally kept an open mind about the matter. When MarshallSumter contacted me on my talk page, I must admit I too saw no sense in it, and formed no opinion on whether the relevant pages should be deleted. However I did note this: "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." It was on this basis that Abd was unblocked, however he seems to have moved away from this position and his actions are leading to a series of controversies." I feel that Abd is making a big issue about the fact that several years ago my status as a custodian did not go beyond the probationary period. For myself, I am not particularly status conscious and have not seen the need to ask to have my role as Custodian confirmed. On the one hand, I do find Abd's behaviour off putting, and it certainly has made me consider adandonning the role, particularly when it puts me in the firing range for Abds harrassment. On the otherhand, I have spent considerable time advocating Wikiversity (in preference to Wikieducator where Abd's behaviour would not be tolerated). I also see that Wikiversity's link to Wikipedia is important, and I am keen to see things like the Education extension installed here, as it has been brilliant when used on Wikipedia. I would also say that advocating Wikiversity has not actually done my reputation amongst fellow Wikimedians in London any good: The general view is that anyone on Wikiversity is likely to be faced with previsely the sort of behaviour that ABd is exhibiting i.e. that it is a toxic environment. Actually things have been quite good for the last few years, but over the last month I have found things problematic, primarily as a result of Abd's behaviour. I feel that his activity on the talk page of the SUSTAINed Handbook may well have driven a group of educators away from the project. (we shall see). And indeed it may well drive me away as well. I suppose it depends on the extent I feel I have the support of the handful of people active as Custodians. Perhaps we haven't got enough sensible participants to keep this wiki going? Leutha (discuss • contribs) 00:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a fourth way? Perhaps we should never delete empty pages with good names.  See Colonial India.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There's already a template for that. You can just tag it with .  The problem with that approach, as I see it, is both content and organization.  Too many people think Wikiversity should be Wikipedia, and copy content over rather than creating some type of learning opportunity that goes beyond encyclopedia content, and in many cases having a top-level resource with a given name may never have a full course on the subject.  Colonial India certainly could, but when?  I'd prefer putting a  to Wikipedia in place of either the blank page or the 'we' if we're going to keep the pages.  I prefer deleting them, because it takes them out of the search, and to me there's no advantage to having a search item that yields nothing.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Great. I will tag with "we" or "softredirect" until this nonsense with requests to undelete settles down a bit.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. I have applied the "we" and "softredirect" to two pages and suggest we continue this discussion at User_talk:Guy_vandegrift

--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While any user may suggest discussion on their talk page, this suggestion has impact on WV:Deletions. Discussion on a user talk page (or even off-wiki) is preliminary and can be useful. I'd caution any user against widespread action based on "local consensus," i.e., two or three people, or some possibly biased subset, except under certain conditions, which I'd be happy to describe if asked. It's fine to test the water, if you don't mind getting a bit wet. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with above, this was originally a response to Guy's comment of 11:04, 11 September 2015) No, if a page has no content that would save a new page creator significant time or that would actually encourage development, it should be deleted even if it is linked, because the redlinks may encourage someone to take it on and users will not waste time following a link or a google search to a page with no content, which will tend to suppress further Wikiversity participation. On Wikipedia, a redlink for a good name often means "topic considered not notable," and sophisticated users may tend to avoid it.


 * Noobs often barge ahead and ... well, I have a lot of studies showing what happens. Here, we don't have a notability criterion. You want to study -- or teach -- something,anything go right ahead! If there is a problem, we will let you know.


 * If you are an IP user, the content might be lost, at first glance, but register an account, you will normally gain significant respect and you will almost always be able to get it back, and easily. Content will not be abruptly deleted, or, if it is, you can get it back. You will not get into trouble, or, if you do, and your intentions are sincere, the trouble can be disappeared. You can make lots of mistakes here. That is because our goal is not merely "content," it is also "learning by doing." Your education is one of our goals. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of harm
This was not actually relevant to the discussion of "deleting pages," but claims are being made about me that could lead to a general negative perception of my work. and thus damage. I am not asking for custodian action at this time, but that my behavior is brought up on this page might be considered a general request, as with the section above, (permanent link as this is written).

Above, Leutha is alleging harm with no showing of it. First of all, my unblock request is covered in User:Abd/References to my unblock request. I just pinged Leutha from there, since this is the second time he's mentioned it with no apparent knowledge that the commitment was formally withdrawn. The unblocking custodian could still object to that by warning or reblocking. That custodian is clearly aware of my involvement with governance, and has thanked me for it. There was no community decision behind the block that I should not be involved, rather an unmistakably involved custodian had blocked me indef. Not the only case like that. I could have made a successful unblock request without that commitment. I did it to make it simple and avoid the confrontation that otherwise would have been necessary.

Secondly, what I did (moving SUSTAIN Handbook to Sustainability/Handbook) should have zero negative effect on the SUSTAIN users. They clearly accepted it, quickly. It allows them complete freedom to develop the resource as they see fit, something not always the case with a top-level mainspace project. Their suggested "rules" for that page were not compatible with Wikiversity neutrality policy. As a subpage, it can be made compatible if there is ever a problem, easily. This used an existing resource and will very likely encourage further participation there. perhaps with additional subpages. The "Handbook" can be, if they want, a managed project. Leutha has clearly not understood this concept and why it is important to maintain freedom here.

I mentioned Leutha's status above because he claimed he was not active with deletions because of "the situation," but that was clearly not the cause of his inactivity for four years. I was blocked for two of those years. He is now stating that he is thinking of "abandoning the role," when he never really took it up. He did not gain experience in dispute resolution, and he is claiming that his "advocating Wikiversity" has damaged his reputation. (My sense is that he does not understand Wikiversity and how and why it is the hidden jewel of the WMF, a door into a new realm, that will eventually lead to reform of the entire system, resolving problems that have been considered intractable.)

That "not done my reputation any good" is believable. The reputation of Wikiversity was poor, before I ever became a user here. There were calls for Wikiversity to be shut down, by major users (globally) and they had nothing to do with me. If Leutha felt "harassed," and I trust that he did, he created that himself, by not being willing to learn how to deal with disagreement, how to develop a resource without any hindrance, even in the presence of serious disagreement, and resisting suggestions, believing that he has to read everything related, which is difficult for him (as it might be for anyone). However, then, he did not know how to proceed efficiently, and, as a custodian, he'd need to know these things. Essentially, how is consensus found in the presence of disagreement or objection? By complaining on RCA? By engaging in tedious dispute, making personal accusations, leading to the generation of walls of text? Is it possible to efficiently collaborate with people with whom you have a disagreement?

Yes, it is, and this has been well demonstrated on Wikiversity, but is Leutha aware of the demonstrations? This is not the place to discuss Leutha's probationary custodianship. That would start on his mentor's Talk page. Exploration of this has begun. There is no "User feedback" page. I will fix that with User feedback. I started User:Abd/Restrictions in 2010, as one effort, ignored. I will create a User:Abd/Feedback page as an optional preliminary step to using a Wikiversity space page for this. As a user page, the goal is for me to be advised, so I properly have control of it. On Custodian feedback the goal is for the users to negotiate consensus, and to be assisted in this by the community. A user Feedback page, similarly should not be used to seek sanctions, nor a Custodian Feedback section to seek desysop. In both cases if there is a failure, the next step is not this page, RCA, which, when conflict is involved, is only for emergency, ad hoc custodial intervention, pending consensus, the next step would be WV:Community review, though which the community has the power to restrict or ban users, to remove advanced privileges, or to make policy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Move learning project Applications from namespace to main space
Is it possible to move learning project Applications (User:Timboliu/Applications) from my namespace to the main space (is this the right word?)? The structure of this learning project is clear. I want to work with other people to improve the content and I have to explain why my name is in the link. Can a moderator help me with moving this learning project with all the subpages? Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually you can use the "move" tool. It's at the top of the page, often under "More". May I suggest if you wish to move to Mainspace, or resource space, that you pick a more specific title than "Applications", perhaps something like "Applications/Food", depending on the subject matter, or "Information technology/Computer applications", or what ever comes closest in your opinion to the aim or objective of the applications. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There are 50 subpages involved in this request, so it is better for a custodian to process. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Would either the name Software Applications or Software applications work? Applications means many things to many people in different industries. For example anyone applying for work or school typically fills out applications, and that doesn't seem to be what this project is about. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave, renaming the page to Software applications is okay! Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dave! Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 08:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do the links not work on the following page? https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Software_applications/Overview/WebMaker. For instance 'Future of WebMaker' should link to: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Software_applications/Overview/WebMaker/Future_of_WebMaker. Regards, Tim Timboliu (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * They work when you click on "edit", then "show preview" but not on "resource". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- sort of. Okay, this is weird. I went to the previous form under View history. It shows the links working. Saved it supposedly over Dave's move and all the links work. Dave's move is still the last entry but now the links work. Go figure? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't change anything, a save doesn't actually save. My guess is some sort of either server or browser caching issue.  But if it's working now, nothing else to do.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for unblocking a page from a blacklisted website.
Hello,

I am currently writing a course called MATLAB essentials, and I need to insert a link to the following page: tutorialspoint.

If you can remove it from your blacklist, that would be much appreciated.


 * This isn't on our Blacklist. It's on the Meta global blacklist.  Can you provide the specific URL for the page you want to link to?  You can leave off tutorialspoint or just put tp/ at the front of the URL.  Leave off http/https as well.  Thanks.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to other custodians. See MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and Spam blacklist.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the blacklist info, Dave. I see that user:Gtouchan94 found the right person to ask about 'versity policy.  I am really impressed by MATLAB essential--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. This is the page that I want to put a link into.  www.tutorialspoint.com/matlab/try_matlab.php --Gtouchan94 (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

✅ - I reviewed the site and searched Internet. I don't see anything harmful here. No reason I can find to block it. Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated. --Gtouchan94 (discuss • contribs) 03:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi all. I had this on my user page. I am not sure we should block 111.95.69.222 IP address, as it has only been one piece of vandalism and the address may have a number of users. However I felt useful to point this out in case there are other vandalistic edits from this address. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As a probationary custodian you have several options:


 * 1) rollback the edit,
 * 2) protect your user page, and/or
 * 3) block the IP.


 * I agree with you about not blocking the IP as there may be more than one user affected. It looks like you already changed the item back to the way it was. My suggestion is to protect your user page so that only registered users can edit it. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can also check user contributions for the IP to see if it vandalized any other pages. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Help in resolving a conflict
In my 3 years on Wikiversity/Wikipedia I have never managed to understand how conflicts are resolved. This one involves myself and an IP editor, and the question of whether a template like belongs on a research page of marginal value. My concern is that it is not uncommon for such templates to cause the page to appear on a list of pages. I could block the IP editor for repeatedly ignoring my removal of that template, but that would leave me ignorant on the question of conflict resolution. See A_difference_of_opinion_regarding_templates.

Let me pose a number of questions, with the understanding that not all need to be answered right now:
 * 1) Is it true that  places this page on a list of research pages?
 * 2) How is a conflict between two editors resolved?
 * 3) Is anybody else interested in developing a policy on pages of marginal value?  If so, I will post an invitation to all on the Colloquium.

Yours truly --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the answer to question #1 is "yes". See Portal:Research and Category:Research.  There may be no urgency regarding question #2 because the IP editor responded to my note without placing the template back on the page.  Nor am I in any rush to take on question #3.  I believe Wikimedia should be involved with question #3 because they providing what is essentially a free website hosting service.  If Wikimedia doesn't mind doing this, I think we should find a way on Wikiversity to permit such pages to exist.  Otherwise we will be up to our ears trying to referee learning resources.  But there is no reason to devise a Wikiversity policy until we know what Wikimedia wants.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See the IP editor's last entry at Talk:HIV_swing_effect for evidence that this dispute may have been resolved.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * From reviewing the above and resource mentioned, I agree that the conflict appears to be resolved. Whether the resource HIV swing effect is or not is a bit hard to tell. I'm not very familiar with virus replication within nuclei of host cells. As part of the resource's development as a learning resource perhaps the resource creator will include some definitions (Wiktionary may be helpful) and some explanations perhaps from the primary literature, with references, of virus replication in host cell nuclei. The resource appears to be suggesting a way to slow down virus RNA or DNA replication by the host nucleus transcription mechanism. Many viruses that infect humans are RNA viruses (their genetic material is in the form of RNA). I believe most DNA viruses infect plants. The HIV virus (and mutations) are RNA viruses, as I recall. I hope this helps. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Category:Research lists a lot of pages that are not research, but the fact that there are too many is no excuse for adding to that list.  My policy is to ignore such pages unless somebody complains, and this page did generate a complaint (giving my decision to remove the templates a 2:1 vote).   My looking into it is an attempt to make the complainer more welcome.  As I said before, an expert in Relativity became inactive a while back and I will always wonder if it was because I failed to respond with sufficient rigor to a crackpot page he or she objected to. I myself and not much concerned about low quality pages -- the internet is very powerful and informative even though it is mostly "junk".--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, I believe you are correct that adding the Research tag would add the project to the list. As to whether or not that would be appropriate, consider referring to Original research.  If it isn't appropriate, the page may not belong in main space, either.
 * 2. See Civility. It becomes an issue for the community to decide and custodians to support or enforce.  Also, this isn't really an anonymous editor, just an editor who has chosen not to log in for current edits.  His identity is known.  He is here, in part, because he has been blocked on other wikis for similar behavior.
 * 3. A policy on content of marginal value will be very difficult to formulate. It would be easier to address quality than value.  But I suspect many items of low quality can be addressed with existing policies and procedures.  We can propose deletion.  We can tag for speedy deletion.  We can move to user space.  We can move under some learning project.
 * Note that this isn't a Wikimedia issue. They get in trouble for invading and overriding community decisions.  It's really up to us to decide and enforce.  But we do need to be consistent in our approach.  The reality is that any time we spend cleaning up something else is time we aren't spending on our own interests, so only those things that really annoy someone are likely to be addressed.  This particular project has now annoyed at least three users, and may need to be addressed.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you the third annoyed user, Dave? I put the prod template on the HIV page and began this list of my "prodded" pages so that I don't forget. I agree with you 100% on the delete-only-if-its-a-problem policy.  But it is interesting to hear you say that Wikimedia is not involved.  Jimbo complained about WV a couple of years ago, saying that he didn't want to sponsor space on the world-wide-web for personal websites.  Given the apparent low cost of storing memory on the web and clouds, perhaps that sentiment has changed. Either way, we are not obligated to clean up if nobody asks us to.  As I said before, I typically clean up as an act of courtesy to Wikiversity "newbies" who are astute enough to recognize a bad page when they see one.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm a third user, or the first, actually, since I dealt with just getting the project named properly to start with. If you research Jimbo and Wikimedia, you will find that there is a good bit of disagreement between what the organization wants and what the communities want.  Occasionally, the organization goes too far, and one or more of the communities pushes back.  The organization seems to have found that when they are too heavy-handed, they lose contributors.  So, it's a delicate balance.  My perception right now is that this is a community issue.
 * But if you have time to organize a cleanup effort, I don't think Jimbo would mind. I would like to do it in small, manageable chunks, though.  Pick something we (the community) can agree on and work on that first.  My personal favorite would be the Welcome and expand pages.  Most of those could be soft redirected to Wikipedia with no loss of quality.  Maybe pick a timeframe, like any page over a year old that was never expanded could be redirected instead.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Spam

 * User:Mnjcbjbc - Continous spam: here and here Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)