Wikiversity:Request custodian action/Archive/9

IP vandalism to Colloquium, revert warring
Please look at or watch and act as appropriate. I'm warning the IP, don't know if that will help or not. --Abd 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will revert as I see these edits, as they are blatantly inappropriate. I will stop immediately on request by any sysop or reputable registered editor. (Which means everyone I'd recognize, I believe.) If the IP editor sees this, ask an other editor to ask me to stop, or you can discuss this with me on my talk page or your talk page (if you have the same IP). Please do not continue unless you have support from others or me. --Abd 20:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Both this and the IP 211.116.47.68, just blocked, and which was cross-wiki vandalizing, are Korean IP, likely same user. --Abd 21:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Block User:180.190.170.182
Cross-wiki spamming. Thenub314 00:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Either they've lost interest or their IP address has changed. I think no action is needed right now. -- dark lama  17:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete edits
Could someone please hide/delete edits to User:LauraHale/IRC log - 23/11/2010‎. She accidentally posted a bit too much. Thenub314 04:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Jtneill - Talk - c 06:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandal Concerns
Someone on IRC was concerned about vandalism and looking for admins, but none were around. Here is what they were concerned about:

User:%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F

As well as User:Vandal_account_1703, User:Vandal_account_1704, ... User:Vandal_account_1713 and their related contributions should be checked out. Though some accounts seem somewhat inactive. I thought it couldn't hurt to call custodian attention to them. Thenub314 06:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)



To make it more clear. --Gbaor 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These accounts appear to be dummy accounts created to eliminate vandals. I don't see anything that requires custodial action, can you elaborate a bit further on what the user's concern was? Geoff Plourde 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think these were users with offensive usernames who were renamed by a 'crat. Adambro 18:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked for CU on meta just in case. Who was asking about these? --SB_Johnny talk 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @Geoff He was a bit vauge about his concerns. He came in and had been asking for an admin for a while, when I asked him what specifically what he mentioned blocking and deleting. When I asked him of what he started listing these accounts.  Not having tools I didn't read much further, just thought I would call some custodians attention to it.  I am not terribly surprised no action is necessary, most of the accounts seemed quite stale to me.  But I thought it was better to be safe then sorry, so I posted them here. Thenub314 19:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that these are dummy accounts moved by crats to prevent the vandal's name appearing in revision history (which is largely unsuccessful due to the rv directly following any such edits by the previous accounts' names) and that they should be blocked because they violate the username policy at the very least; see Digitalme blocking Vandal account 1701 for example, despite the user having no contribs. TeleComNasSprVen 23:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No action necessary These accounts have been in existence for some time and none listed have edits. They were likely created by a bureaucrat and are likely inaccessible to the original user. Simply due to the sheer number of accounts and dormancy, there is no reason to act at this time. Geoff Plourde 01:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

delete all my pages
can you please delete all the pages that i created. including my talk page and user page. You can check in there histories that no edit of substance was done by others.--Deweirdifier 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked for such and it was rejected. Good luck to you and I hope your request succeeds. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The normal way to request a self-created page be deleted is through a speedy deletion template, not through a general request to go through contributions history, or with a blanket request, even, on Requests for deletion. The template makes the pages easy to find for a custodian, and each page will be considered on its own merits. I suppose a blanket deletion like this, covering everything is about as simple this way, but creates a single large task instead of creating a pile of smaller ones than can be handled piecemeal, by different custodians, as with a deletion template.
 * Ottava was requesting the deletion of pages with substantial and useful content, and which had, at the time of the request, apparently mixed authorship; i.e., he was requesting pages created under another account to be deleted from a request with this account, and it also appeared that the request had an origin in a snit, and some felt it might be better to wait a little while and follow normal process. Complicated.
 * As to this request, here, were I a custodian (I expect I will be one in very short order), I'd attend to this request -- i.e., specifically consider it. I might not delete the user talk page: it has comment from another user on it. I might ask by email, or on the user talk page, for a reason why the material is being deleted. We do not necessarily honor such requests; while there is a preference, other things being equal, to honor a user request, there is also the welfare of the project to consider. I looked only at one of these pages, one mentioned by Jtneil, and, while it has problems, it was also engaging in a certain way.... --Abd 23:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "it was also engaging in a certain way"? Will you delete my user page right away at least?--Deweirdifier 00:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Your user page has been deleted. Some of the other pages requested will need to be reviewed.  --mikeu talk 00:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's okay, but given that, it turns out, the user listed the pages he wanted deleted specifically on his user page, see User_talk:Jtneill, this might have complicated the rest.... But we normally do delete user pages on request, period!
 * In any case, Deweirdifier, how do you now feel about the rest of the pages? If you still want any of them deleted, you can place
 * at the top of each page, logged in, and they will each eventually get attention. If you really want the content to not be seen by 'bots or searches, you can also blank the page. Sometimes an author blanking the page is enough to attract a custodian to delete the page, but blanking and then adding the deletion template shown above will call more attention to it, possibly leading to faster action. When I was a custodian, I frequently checked the category of speedy deletions and I never got around to checking for blank pages!
 * at the top of each page, logged in, and they will each eventually get attention. If you really want the content to not be seen by 'bots or searches, you can also blank the page. Sometimes an author blanking the page is enough to attract a custodian to delete the page, but blanking and then adding the deletion template shown above will call more attention to it, possibly leading to faster action. When I was a custodian, I frequently checked the category of speedy deletions and I never got around to checking for blank pages!


 * If someone disagrees with blanking or the deletion request, they will unblank and/or remove the deletion template. Then you would have to go to Requests for deletion in order to obtain consensus for deletion. That takes up people's time, and you should think, in that case, how important it is to you. It will, of course, attract attention and create a permanent, not easily deletable, record of discussion of your work. Seems to me that your work was more or less writing off the top of your head, with whatever idea came in. That's okay! If we don't want to keep it, we won't! I'd guess you are young, but anyone who writes as you did will make mistakes. Not A Problem. Mistakes are the fastest way to learn. This is a place for learning. Welcome. As this place grows, you would find more comment appear on what you wrote, I regret that it has not, yet, attracted comment (was there some, I didn't look at all of it). Would you want correction of errors there? Or discussion of debatable points? It could be valuable for you and others. If something doesn't belong in mainspace, is too personal, it could easily be moved to user space. Or, indeed, deleted, as appropriate. --Abd 02:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you for your help. I used the delete template.--Deweirdifier 14:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

✅ by Geoff Plourde. --Draicone (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for Import
Could someone import from wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thenub314 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, may need a bit of work to tailor it for WV. Adambro 16:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Thenub314 18:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, we also have Template:SUL Box. --mikeu talk 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does mean that there is a redundancy? Geoff Plourde 01:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless there is some subtle difference that I didn't notice, they seem to do the same thing. --mikeu talk 14:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So which one should be deleted? Geoff Plourde 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed Template:SUL Box to a redirect for consistency with WP. I think my import may have confused things slightly. It is a shame that when importing pages you aren't able to see where revision have come from. I've had a quick look at where this template is used and can see some working okay and a couple not but can't be sure whether they worked before anyway. When I get chance I'll have a look at making sure they all work. Adambro 19:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed our version and created extra work, I will look more carefully next time.

Requesting an Unbiased set of eyes
I am very upset about this comment and I was hoping less involved could take a look at it. I am hoping for the following outcome either tell me to stop being so sensitive (which is a possibility) or let me know if I have legitimate cause for complaint. In which case I will approach Abd and attempt to resolve our issue directly.

The part that most concerns me most is: "...by you, making unsupportable statements, trying to tempt, perhaps, a custodian into deletion without checking *each page.* The list was ordered such that a simple confirmation on a few pages might miss the problem."

From my point of view I was responding to a request of Geoff to figure out which pages had multiple authors and which did not. Instead I was greeted with demands of explaining how I knew Ottava was the author of these pages (which I don't think crossed any civility lines.) If I been in civil in any way in this conversation it was in stating my belief that Abd had reason to know that second account belong to Ottava and he was raising this objection was valid but purely argumentative.

While I find particularly upsetting is the suggestion that I ordered the lists specifically to deceive. I copy and pasted the list from above, and using the edit preview feature moved down and move pages into the appropriate section as they came up. I would like to explicitly call attention to the fact that the last sentence of my post asked a custodian to double check my work. So I find the attempt at casting doubt on my character.... well upsetting to put it politely. So if I could get the advice of an uninvolved person, I would appreciate it. Thenub314 07:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, see Requests_for_Deletion. --Draicone (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub misinterpreted my comment there. I have redacted the part of my comment that made this misinterpretation more possible. There were no demands, in fact, there were challenges of fact, because Thenub was not mentioning the obvious, while asserting something that was, on the face, preposterous. Unless Ottava had an undeclared sock. That is now, roughly, out, on the page, probably irreversibly. Yes, I knew that this was Ottava, probably most did. But not Draicone, who, then, simply stated the obvious. I was unwilling to do that because I was trying to leave the door open for Ottava to withdraw that request and, if he wanted to, later, quietly follow the normal process for an author-requested deletion, which he could easily have done, separately, for the two accounts. There was no explicit "suggestion that" Thenub "ordered the lists specifically to deceive," but that the lists were ordered in a way that might lead to an oversight. Thenub had simply ordered the lists the same way as Ottava had, so if there was an attempt to deceive through ordering, it would not have been that of Thenub. However, Thenub obviously did come across the problem, and asserted, then, someting that was, on the face, false. Unless we assume that the two accounts were both Ottava. Since Ottava had long taken pains to conceal that connection, to the point of revision deleting references to his real name, leaving that RfD open was an invitation to outing. Ottava has used outing previously, over this very name, as a reason to block or to keep blocked. So the whole thing was quickly an entangled mess, with Ottava and Thenub, apparently, assuming an intention on my part to harm Ottava, when the reverse was the case.
 * Thanks to Draicone for responding here and commenting there. This shows how an "inactive custodian" may become active at any time, and I very much appreciate his responses. --Abd 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottava Rima
Please examine and watch this situation:. --Abd 18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's unfolding: User_talk:SB_Johnny#Incivility_warning. --Abd 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense Abd, it's rather easy to imagine that you're salivating at the thought of Ottava being blocked. You also recieved the same warning, and at least your second post here seems to go against the spirit of that warning. Again, please drop the stick. --SB_Johnny talk 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, SBJ, I find it hard to understand how the edits above violate the warning. ("Spirit" may be something in your mind, but not actually expressed. Sorry, I'm not necessarily a good mind-reader. Gets me into trouble, sometimes.) Nor do I see how a request for custodian attention on a situation like that is improper in any way, nor how this indicates "salivating" over anything. No specific response is proposed. No block is requested. Nothing deprecating anyone, unless the writings of the individuals themselves do so. Those diffs show a developing situation requiring attention, which is why I posted this. The attention might be warnings, suggestions, or, yes, blocks. Of you, of Ottava, of me, whatever a custodian thinks.
 * I will say this: everything I have written or done since that warning has considered it, I've strictly curtailed my writing about this situation, and posted the above to carefully avoid what you warned me against. Nevertheless, if you believe that my actions are harming Wikiversity, you have the right or even responsibility to block me appropriately, I am waiving recusal requirements, because I deeply trust that your intentions are to help Wikiversity. If you err, it can be fixed. --Abd 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you criticize Abd. He went to a neutral forum to post. You, however, with a strong conflict of interest came at us with a warning that was inappropriate then claimed there were no other admin around. It is odd, seeing as how Draicone, Darklama, Geoff, Leigh, Juandev, and others are around but only semi-active, and that Mikeu is even in IRC now. It would seem that Abd's action above was 100% appropriate whereas yours was not, compounding the problem inherent in your incivil response to Abd. Characterizing someone as "salivating" is not within Civility's acceptable use. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The first post was fine. The second post was maybe not so good. --SB_Johnny talk 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Ottava! However, please don't take this as a cause to claim a problem with SB_Johnny. His warnings were appropriate. What he is trying to do is obvious, and commendable. Now, let's see what neutral custodians think, okay? --Abd 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Even though a custodian may be seen as involved, particularly if there is a situation causing disruption which might indicate blocking a user, and the user is, say, attacking the custodian who is aware of the situation, I have written that a custodian may bypass recusal requirements by going ahead and blocking, but immediately disclosing the possible recusal requirement, declaring an emergency, and placing the matter on an appropriate noticeboard for immediate review. In immediate review, the action itself would be reviewed for necessity. In long-term review, a custodian who improperly declares emergency may be reprimanded, or, if the situation continues, desysopped, but the latter remedy would likely only arise after continued disregard of recusal policy and abuse of the "emergency" declaration. Our problems with recusal failure have been where there was involved action, but no emergency and no referral. Recusal protects custodians as well as the community, custodians who do not understand recusal create disruption even when they are "right," because an appearance of partiality is created and allowed to continue. Too often, even blatant recusal failure, when pointed out, results in argument over whether the action was right or not. That's a fundamental error, Wikipedia fell into that trap and is still stuck in it.
 * In the present case, it's obvious that SB_Johnny is under a recusal requirement; however, that does not mean that his warnings can be disregarded. He may block, if he follows the suggested procedure, which assumes that he sees an emergency, where immediate harm is resulting, and where delay may compound the harm and blocking prevent it. I asked for review of the situation here because of what is obvious if the links are reviewed, and because it would be better if additional custodial attention is focused, quickly, on this situation, so that SB_Johnny is not forced into a recusal violation, unnecessarily, emergency or not.

--Abd 19:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Right now, I have seen more incivility coming from either Ottava or Abd more so than I have ever seen SB Johnny. How is he in any way "canvassing" when this wiki is so small and posting to only a few discussion boards draws editors to a thread like bees to their honey? And isn't using the MediaWiki:Sitenotice also considered "canvassing"? Anyway, would a topic ban between these two be appropriate? TeleComNasSprVen 19:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the diffs I posted, the reason for this request for independent review? Did you read the warnings from SBJ to Ottava and myself and our responses? In a sense, there is a topic ban, though not totally rigid, this is not Wikipedia. I'm under tight restriction at this moment, and voluntarily, because I respect the warning that SBJ issued and appreciate his intentions. I hope I can say this: I'm hoping that Ottava will do likewise, and I can easily forgive him for his strenuous objections, given the extreme stress he was under. That is, I hope, over now, given the desysopping close, and what I hope is rapid closure of the CR, and we can all move on. We should not hold his responses during this event against him. Amnesty. Thanks. --Abd 23:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Canvassing is drawing people who would not normally participate in a discussion to a discussion to stack the decks. Most of the people SB Johnny brought in were highly inactive and would not have been involved. Sitenotices are for active users who are regulars and would most likely see the matter anyway. And we do not need many outsiders flooding in to deal with community matters as consensus is to reflect the active community and be discussions by them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

New Project
I will be starting a new project in the very near future and there will be 12 students assisting me in the development of it. In the "editing a wiki" section I was advised to contact custodians ahead of time. I am not sure how to do that as I couldn't see any form of traditional hyperlink so I am resorting to this method. Help?


 * I'm not exactly sure why that advise is there, but if we can provide any assistance or answer anything specific, please let us know :-).
 * Just out of curiosity, what will the project be about? --SB_Johnny talk 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will suggest that you request the students to register accounts and to only edit the project pages with the account they register. (If they have a Wikipedia account, they may use that, but they may also, if they wish, register a separate account here, it's okay as long as they don't "sock," i.e., use more than one account to make a single user appear to be more than one on the same wiki, or to evade a block, etc. We do not care about account status elsewhere, just here.) Further, the project should probably have a single top-level page, with all other pages being subpages of that page. This allows the rest of us to see what is going on. I saw a recent case where a class created a whole series of similar pages, and, worse, many of these pages were created by IP editors, and, not being visible as being part of the project, one of the pages was deleted by a custodian who thought it, by itself, was inappropriate for Wikiversity. As something clearly part of a class project, it would have been fine, without question.
 * You can then have a class roster listing the participants by their user name here. This will help everyone else understand what's going on. (It becomes important when vandals appear!) You may also decide whether or not to admit "outside students," i.e., people who are not already connected with you. We prefer, generally, that Wikiversity projects be open, but we can, for a limited time, allow a professor or teacher to control participation (this is not well-established policy, just my opinion). This kind of control is more legitimate in subpages, generally; a top-level mainspace page with a generic subject name could appear to "own" a whole topic. However, if there is a class in, say, French history, there can be a top-level page on French history, linking to a specific class on that subject, as French history/Leader's class. All work by the class then would be on that and subpages of that. If Leader has some idiosyncratic or fringe view of French history, we still have no problem with this organization, and can allow Leader wide latitude in directing study of the topic on that set of subpages. But on the top page, we must have subject neutrality, which requires consensus and shared responsibility.
 * Welcome to Wikiversity, Cmac7203. --Abd 23:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)