Wikiversity talk:Request custodian action/Archive 1

Broom image >> SVG?
Should Image:Broom icon.png be changed to Image:Broom icon.svg? The SVG is 2kb smaller, just as good and scales better, so I don't see why not. --Draicone (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Be bold ;) guillom 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

UIUC PHIL 270
The UIUC PHIL 270 discussion, here presents an important precedent I think. I set forth what I think is a bit of diplomacy on Talk:UIUC PHIL 270 in case the poster returned. At any rate, this potential problem should be anticipated by the staff. Maybe we can come up with a polite but firm template and a sort of "jail" for orphaned pages that are suspect as cheatsheets or other malfeasance?

IMO, the tone should be one of simple caution rather than stern warning and certainly not accusational in any way. I can't imagine why or how anyone would want to abuse Wikiversity, but you never know. The prospect of a negative news report is a real concern in my mind, and should be dealt with immediately. CQ 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Jade Knight 06:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best not to get carried away assuming people are attempting to cheat. Assume good faith.  At the Colloquium I have initiated discussion of establishing a procedure to make it obvious we will be contacting instructors for permission to use their material or when cheating or inappropriate is strongly suspected.  This should encourage most sharp operators to move on. Mirwin 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity:Practicums
moved to Wikiversity course formats

Move this page?
I think this page should be renamed to "Request custodial action". Good idea? --HappyCamper 13:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your preference? Why not just make a re-direct?  --JWSchmidt 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it does not read grammatically correct to me. I would like to move it though. But then again, only just a minor issue in the grand scheme of things. --HappyCamper 03:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't resist pointing out that "correct" is not correct. Should be "correctly," but that's a bit clumsy. Just "grammatically" would do. Minor issue? Not to the Grammar Police (TM) --Abd 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think either is acceptable, currently, you are requesting action by a custodian, you could write, for example, "request janitor action." In the latter, you are requesting action of a custodial nature, as in "request papal action."
 * I would go with "request janitorial action"; "request papal services" would be good. Would be nice to know what this grammatical aspect is, but it's peripheral. --HappyCamper 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think personally the page should stay as "Request Custodian action", request for Custodial action doesn't sound right. DarkMage  18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the use of a noun in place of an adjective. To follow an example given above, would a bishop request "pope services," or "papal services"? If we want to say "Request action by a custodian," that would be fine. "Request action" is what we are doing, eh? And then what kind of action? Action by a custodian, or custodial action.

Not "custodian action". Not if we are writing English! Some words serve as both nouns and adjectives, such as "police." But "custodian," "janitor," or "administrator" are not like that. "Sysop," though, in the absence of an adjective -- we'd have to use "administrative," sysopial or sysopian being seriously absent without leave, or pretend that "sysop" is also an adjective. Or we can just leave it all alone and accept that the custodial services at this University are not being performed by English professors. Unless they are, eh? Probably not the one who set up this page. If so, my condolences. Maybe the economy is bad and the professor doesn't want to work in his or her field unless paid appropriately. Come to think of it, I was an editor, professionally. What in the world am I doing here? --Abd 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lost my password?
Hi, I am not sure if my login is hijacked as i requested for a password reminder but it hasn't arrive for one hour now. I wrote to an aquantance for help but later i read that this is the right place to ask. - User:Red1 (red1(at)adempiere.org)
 * "user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users" <-- are you sure that you verified your email for this account? --JWSchmidt 03:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, i tot i did. So now it must have been not. That means it wasnt hijacked, just that i couldnt remember my password. So what should i do? Can my email as stated in my user page be set into the password trigger? No hurry. I hope Cormaggio who knows me can assist in due time - Red1
 * ahh! finally my password worked! bad keyboard must have caused a typo. I will try activating my email validation. - Red1 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

An OCEANIC Issue
SB Johnny has posted a request for a review of recent events and reactions arising from a series of interlocking disputes, kerfuffles, and burbling conflicts.

This would be a good occasion to review the character traits that we look for in those playing leadership roles in these online cultures and communities.

I have posted on my Wikiversity talk page a reprint of a review of a model that I had previously posted elsewhere. This model comes from the literature on managerial leadership and is well known to subject-matter experts who engage in management consulting to successful business managers. It is fair to say that prominent Wikipedians are aware of this model.

My own feeling is that we need more insight into the issues that are surfacing in these recent kerfuffles. We need to pay conscientious attention to the underlying issues, we need to clarify the cultural values that are at stake, we need to develop more compassion for those who are ensnared in these perplexing situations, and we need to avoid gratuitous recriminations in search of blameworthy characters, we need to devise efficacious policies and practices for dealing with these recurring liminal social dramas, going forward.

Moulton 09:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes it is useful to discuss human personalities in abstract and binary terms (person X has trait Z). I think real humans are more complex than such an "off" or "on" digital model. I seem to recall that you have argued elsewhere against applying highly nonlinear step functions to situations where it is better to think in terms of subtle gradations. I think we all allow various aspects of our personalities to "expand" and "contract" depending on the situation we are in (particular role we are currently playing). We all try various strategies in search of what seems to work. I agree that information exchange and attention to the details of what is going on can help social systems function better. --JWSchmidt 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These traits are axes or dimensions. FT2 has focused on only 5 of them in his review of the traits he looks for in a business leader.  I've suggest two additional traits (insight and attention) that need to be developed and reckoned in a functional community.  In a dysfunctional community, there are two more (absolution and love) that need to be included to therapize the toxic culture. —Moulton 20:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of Wikiversity resources around this general (personality) topic, you may be interested in Personality and Personality/Lectures/Dispositional perspectives. Sincerely, James. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Related to Personality Models are Character Models, which approach the subject from a dramaturgical perspective. In this view, the character traits are those that define a character in a storybook drama.  See, for example, this character model, and compare it to similar models from psychologists.  —Moulton the Schmeggegy Scientist 10:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: the guidebook. Dzonatas 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

 The third layer of the Stormpike opinion is comprised of the four commanders in this respect. Vanndar has mimicked our own glorious defenses. Of course he will tell you otherwise, but I digress. —Guidebook to Peeling the Onion, Chapter 4  I was amused by the Freudian slip in the above snippet, where the author writes "opinion" instead of "onion" in his allegorical metaphor. Indeed, beliefs and opinions are the middlemost layer of my own Shreklisch Onion Layer Model of an arbitrary storybook character enmeshed in a shreklisch drama. —Moulton 12:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

oversight
One edit containing only vandalism and personal information by Moulton 2DFS (block log) has been removed from the history of this page by a steward at my request. --mikeu talk 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapse boxes
(moved from project page by Abd 15:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC))


 * And stop with the collapse boxes. They don't work, you keep screwing everything up, and you will be blocked if you keep up this nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ottava, if the collapse boxes "don't work," please explain how. On my Talk page, not here, and please do not edit and remove part of my comments, or reformat them to seriously alter the presentation, as you just did. You've been threatening to block me for some time now. I don't advise it; I will, if you do, get a short vacation, I've got plenty to do, and you will get a long one, at least from being a custodian, my prediction, you've already done enough and have ignored consensus enough to earn it several times over. I suggest, instead, that you start listening to the community. --Abd 00:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, if you continue to post malformated templates that destroy the visibility of half the forum, I'll just block you for 24 hours. Cut it out. No one here enjoys your very long posts that say nothing but attacking others with nasty incivility. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please point to a "malformatted template." They work for me. If you don't "enjoy" my "very long posts," then, I suggest, don't read them, if they are in collapse it is because they are not crucial, what is crucial about them would be covered in the collapse header, and they should be read only by those particularly interested. If "nobody enjoys" these posts, then surely I am doing them a service by putting them in collapse, so that "everybody" can see what is presumably more important, the contributions of others. On the other hand, if they contain attacks or "nasty incivility," then I'm responsible for that, and this would be the basis of a block, not the use of collapse or the length. Look, nobody is fooled except maybe you. You dislike the content, because it is critical of you. If you block me, the situation will be obvious. You'll have to find someone else to do it for you, and, I suggest, a proper warning should be issued. Geoff just warned me, and he's sufficiently neutral. If he thinks I was insufficiently responsive to the warning (I tried!), he has no recusal requirement. I'm not going to come unglued if blocked. I am not like you. --Abd 02:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I would also get more out of Abd's posts if he would make the effort to distill his thoughts a bit (as they are now, I tend to only skim them), they're not causing great harm. OTOH, I don't think it merits a block, and I think you (Ottava) should avoid speaking for "everyone here" (since, clearly, you don't).
 * The collapse boxes just make me have to click something before skimming, so (at least for me) they aren't particularly helpful. It only takes a bit of effort on Abd's part to distill them, as opposed to leaving it for everyone else to distill it over and over. BTW: the templates seem to work fine in Firefox. --SB_Johnnytalk 09:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scroll down. If you notice, four sections are unaccessible because of his templating. His templates have had to be fixed multiple times here and it is causing a lot of disruption. He knows that there are problems with them and have been asked to stop. Hiding your statements behind templating is a problem in and of itself. If you don't think he should be blocked, fine, but I'm not the only one that is tired of Abd's 100% disruption without providing anything of educational value to this community. He has no purpose here except to post 100 word+ posts and disrupt. If a ban propose needs to be started to stop his nonsense and disruption, so be it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually just due to a typo (putting ((collapse bottom}} rather than ), rather than a problem with the template or malicious intent. Yes, I fixed one too.
 * If you want to impose some sort of sanction related to his post length or use of collapse templates, open a discussion about it and see what other people think. I'm (personally) not particularly fond of either habit, but I (also personally) don't see it as "100% disruption" or necessarily justifying a block. --SB_Johnny talk 13:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Just as an explanation (I'm quite open to suggestions), I have for many years written more or less off the top of my head, except that I do simultaneous research. I'm staying much more focused on Wikiversity than I am, sometimes, elsewhere, everything I write is relevant (except for a few words here and there, dicta, not really the issue). I take a lot of time already to make sure that what I say is reasonably cogent and adequately explains what I'm saying, finding and providing evidence, etc. Too much time, really! To boil it down would take, probably, double or triple the time. It's just not possible!

When these comments are in, say, a !voting section, as an example, to allow them to sit there full length will overwhelm the section. Hence I use collapse to allow full comment while not visually overshadowing the substance, and writing a section header forces me to make a very brief summary. Now, I could do this a different way, and I did on Wikipedia, and it was effective. (I know it was effective because those who really disliked what I was saying screamed even louder than they did when I used collapse boxes or when I left the material all open in place. That's because they knew that, for many, it was TL;DR. They liked that people would discount what was being said because of the length, and they could use their honed sound-bites to make it seem I was just plain crazy. To answer a cheap shot can take twenty times as many words....

The other technique is to refer to a page or section somewhere else, as a permanent link, typically to a specific section, so the user can get it, one-click, perhaps in a separate window or tab. Because, on Wikipedia, subpages that I'd create for ArbComm evidence were vulnerable to attempts to delete (Yes, there were attempts to delete evidence that had been submitted to ArbComm, and it even worked once,) I started using the following device that couldn't be deleted.
 * Create a new subsection with a unique name for the material to be layered below, and put the material in that section.
 * Save it.
 * Remove it and replace it with an explanation and a link to History, to that specific subsection.

The use of collapse boxes and this "history" subpage do create one problem. Collapse boxes aren't searchable in Firefox, at least. And History isn't searchable at all, if I'm correct. I'm sure there are other solutions.

Wikiversity must start structuring discussions for not only efficiency in process, but also in later review. I've done it on Wikipedia. What I've called the cabal (Those who more or less want to continue running Wikipedia from their rump) hated it, but it worked, and clearly found stable consensus. And when some new and neutral admin or arbitrator came along, having heard there was some kind of fuss, the discussion was all laid out for quick review, and nobody complained that the structuring itself was biased. They couldn't have, because it clearly wasn't. It was, in fact, pretty standard consensus process.

One more comment. People can be irritated by the length because they want to know what the "point" is. Sometimes, the only point is to convey a situation, so that people can come to their own conclusions. If I want to make a point, that is, or can be, a different kind of writing, it is polemic. Polemic must be concise, to be effective. I can write like that, but it takes far more time per word. It is how I write when I'm completely and deeply convinced as to a conclusion that I want to convey. This is not how I write when I'm seeking consensus, which should be based, preferably, on shared knowledge. That takes a lot more words. --Abd 16:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good place to start, Abd! I'm not reading any of that: tl;dr. Can you make the effort to express your point in a concise way? I'm not getting paid big bucks to read that, after all. Generally, I just pop in for a few minutes to see what's going on, and I don't want to spend a long time reading just to find that your point really only needed a sentence or two to make. I'm probably not the only one who only has a few minutes per visit, so I'm probably not the only one having this issue. --SB_Johnny talk 17:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's okay, SBJ, you don't have to read anything I write, unless maybe it's a warning on your Talk page, and I promise to be brief! If you read a long post of mine, and it could be expressed in a sentence, how about sharing that sentence with us! I might even put the original in a collapse box, or put it even deeper. No, you are not the only one. I do, often, add section headers or use bold text or other devices to produce a "quick outline," which is relatively easy. If I assume that the request to make my point applies to the above, here it is: Writing less takes impossibly more time, or it requires not contributing with depth. It's not just a little more time, it's a lot. If I don't take the space to write deeply, people complain that what I've written is incomprehensible or that it contains charges without substantiation, or they obviously don't understand it. I've been working on this problem, with myself and others and with on-line process in general, for well over twenty years. In face-to-face meetings, someone who goes on and on does serious damage. With on-line process, if one finds someone's writing boring or wandering and useless, one can just skip it easily, and, usually, trust that someone else will repeat something if it is important. Yet, the same objections are made as used to be made with face-to-face domination of time. And the reasons behind this are fascinating.


 * I do agree that "wall of text" is intimidating, I also scan such text from others, and only read in detail if particularly interested. Hence my interest in the use of collapse or other layering techniques, that provide, ideally, the best of both worlds, and efficiently. Thanks for your comment.--Abd 18:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well here's the thing: I know from experience that you're a person who actually has interesting things to say, so I feel like I'm "missing something" if I ignore it. And writing more concisely might be a great effort on your part, but if 5 people each give 5 minutes of their time when it only should have taken them 1 minute, you've cost 20 minutes of other people's time. If you could spend 15 minutes whittling down... :-). --SB_Johnny talk 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your analysis isn't new, SBJ. Consider this: I'm 66 years old and have less life left to live than most people involved. Possibly much less. Is 1 minute of my time equal to 1 minute of some 20-year-old's time? The 20-year-old and I do have equal "rights," but that does not mean that, when it comes to voluntary actions (my writing and his or her reading), I should value both the same. You find my writing "interesting." Fine. There is a cost for "interesting." You have to invest the time to read. Your choice.


 * Absolutely, I can be more effective by investing that extra time, if I'm writing polemic. But you don't realize what's involved. It's more like I already spend an hour for something, providing free evidence and analysis for those who want to read it. And I'd need to spend an extra two hours, i.e., a total of three hours, to be "more effective". And that might be for one post. And who will read it? What I see is that people who aren't interested in the long version, who don't become interested from the first few words, won't read it anyway if it is short. In other words, I invest the extra work to make it nicer for the few who will read it, but there is actually little increased effective communication. Really, it should be obvious. This is far from a new issue for me.


 * I'm lucky if I have five readers, by the way. I'm usually writing, in some places, for the one who is actually interested, sometimes that person isn't around yet.


 * For polemic, as I mentioned, I'll do it, but there better be a clear goal for me, not merely participation in consensus formation. Also missed in these discussions, typically, is that I learn by writing. If I have a finished topic, if I already know everything I need to know about it -- or think I do --, I will often be much briefer. On Wikipedia, certain admins got used to my discursive style, and believed that I wasn't capable of anything else, so they were not worried at all about disregarding warnings from me. (even though the warnings were brief!). When it came to filing process, I wrote in a very different way. That was polemic. I still kept the NPOV tone, but .... the work was tightly organized. You'll see this here, particularly, if I file a Community Review. That hasn't happened yet because it is, frankly, a lot of work to do it right. I have more than one reason for wanting to resolve things short of Community Review!


 * There are compromises to address the problem. I'm trying to do more of, say, adding bold for emphasis so that the general flow can quickly be seen by a skimmer. I cut paragraphs into multiple paragraphs with space between to improve readibility. I already to quite a bit of copy editing to reduce extra words, how much of that I do depends on how much time I have. Discussions are not intended to be finished documents! (When they are, it is really polemic.) --Abd 21:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

About User:Abd/Request custodian action
discussion moved from Request custodian action --Abd 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the point of the user page above to have a Moderated requests for custodian assistance? It sounds as if it is eventually (when it is watched well enough) be a replacement for this page, is that the idea?  How are the clerks moderating this page chosen? -- Thenub314 14:48, 25 August 2010 signed from history by --Abd 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Moderated. No discussion. It's like calling 911 to ask for help. 911 dispatches an officer or other assistance as appropriate. They do not discuss it. The officer will investigate and ask questions if it isn't obvious. This is a device for asking for a neutral review, efficiently. The intention here is not to replace this page with my page. Anyone may start a page like this, and if they are trusted by at least one active custodian, it will be useful. There is no harm in having a few of these pages from non-custodians, it's just another page on a watchlist, and the page is designed to minimize watchlist traffic. But this page could also be particularly useful for a custodian who recuses when involved. It's a neutral way of asking for an action without going behind the scenes to a "buddy." Eventually, this page might look like this, but, I'll suggest, having this page transclude request sections from user request pages will provide a decentralized control structure. Exactly how this will work out I'm not prepared to define crisply. My page is an experiment, and, so far, I'm finding it useful.
 * In addition, I'm generally putting [recuse] with requests where I would recuse were I a custodian. Generally, if I don't have that there, I'd act if I were a custodian, and without discussion, though in a few cases I might act and discuss. I forgot to do that today, I'll go back and fix that. This is a flag that says that I'm involved and might be biased, so, please, handle with care. Thenub, you commented on the page. I moved it to the Discussion page. --Abd 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Users may be disconcerted by my control of that page. It is essential to the function of a request page like this that it not become a discussion page, and that it be kept in reasonable order. If this page were an official Wikiversity page, we might want to appoint clerks to do this, it's an example of something that doesn't work well with the pure adhocracy. The particular solution here is to have this page not be official. It's my personal request page. Anyone may use it, subject to my moderation. If anyone doesn't like my moderation, they can start their own request page and do exactly the same thing with it, or something different. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, there is no big problem, as long as content on the page isn't disruptive. As my user page, by tradition, I have authority over it, with few exceptions. Now, I'm dedicated to using this page in a neutral way, but you don't have to trust me on that, because I'm not obligated to be neutral in what I request! --Abd 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem very neutral to me, but perhaps I am biased after having my comments removed. But it sounds like you want to have a page where you can make requests where an administrator who generally agrees with you and trusts you can review these requests and make the changes, how is this neutral? Thenub314 18:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Always compare with alternatives. My requests are not required to be neutral, nor are yours. You have now used the page to request a page deletion. Fine. It will not be discussed there. You may make brief notes, and a custodian taking the case for investigation or action may note that. I have discussed your request on the subpage for Discussion, (click the discussion link at the top, but that goes to a redirect) which is also where your previous comments were moved. Thenub, this is a page in my user space, for my use, and I allow others to use it if they will respect the page rules and my moderation. There is no obligation for you to use it. No custodian is obligated to look at the page, but any may, and any user may. It's just another page on watchlists, for those who want it there, with much less traffic than this page here, with almost all the traffic being very relevant. Your use wasn't wise, because you are basically asking for speedy deletion, which already has a neutral and efficient proposal method. And the page is not appropriate for speedy deletion, and as an experienced user, you should know that. But I do not judge requests on the page, unless they are totally outrageous, and yours wasn't. That is a job for custodians.
 * I'll say this. It looks like you revert warred with me on my user page, then when you realized that wasn't likely to fly, you requested that the page be deleted. That's not particularly collaborative, is it? --Abd 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Revert war is a bit of an overstatement. I added back my comment with a short note saying why I felt it should be on that page.  You still disagreed with and removed it again, I took no further action.  As my deletion request points out I feel this system for making requests is inherently lacking in transparency and neutrality.  It was mostly inspired by comments here.  In the same way that my comments there reduce a deletion to a speedy deletion the requests to undelete become speedy undeletions. All of this bypasses the normal process, and I hope that no custodian replies to requests for action unless they are placed on the appropriate page (including my own) so that everyone may comment.  Thenub314 20:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "revert war" is only an "overstatement" if you take it as one. You made an edit, I reverted it with an explanation, moving the comment to the Discussion page. You restored the statement. That's revert warring, even though you added an explanation.


 * Now, would I be asking someone to block you for this? Of course not! Long before that, you can be sure, I would first warn you on your Talk page. If you continued, then I'd request a custodian review it. Most custodians, unless you had done a lot of this before, would simply confirm the warning (or warn me if I'm the one who's off, or perhaps warn both of us). Only if you continued to barge ahead would something stronger be needed. "Lacking in transparency"? Compared to what? Take a look at that page, User:Abd/Request custodian action, and look at how clear it is compared to this page. There is no off-wiki discussion or collusion behind this. If there were, do you think that I'd create a page which will show all requests and who granted them (or denied them)? "Speedy undeletion" is, in fact, normal when a reasonable request is made. One of those requests, for example, is for undeletion and userification of a deleted page. If the content is itself seriously disruptive -- more than what is frequently being added by quite a few users -- then the request would be denied, though the custodian might email me the wikitext so I could see for myself. This is a kind of request that is routinely granted by admins on Wikipedia, and there is ordinarily no discussion at all.


 * If an admin thinks that something there really should be discussed before taking any action, the admin can deny the request and so state that opinion. I simply ask that this be a neutral custodian, and, on that page, if any user's request is denied and the user thinks the custodian is biased, the user can ask that the request remain there for a time. The custodian comment will either be allowed or will be noted with a diff.


 * That is not a discussion page. This, unfortunately, has become one. See below. Jtneill repeated a request, here, that I'd made there; basically providing the same information. It was granted, and this request here really should have been closed immediately, on its way to an archive. If someone has a problem with it, they could raise it with SB_Johnny. Instead, see what happened, there is discussion which is no longer "a request for custodian action." It's a complaint, and a response to the complaint. Off-topic for this page. Like this, really. I'd be fine if this is moved to the Discussion page. Meanwhile, all this creates more traffic for custodians to watch.


 * My conclusion is that clerked process is needed, and my page is an experiment toward that. It's completely voluntary, nobody has to watch that page, but anyone can. I'm going to ask custodians to note, on my RCA page, if they are watching it. The more who do, my opinion, the more efficient and open our custodial action request process will become. And then we could look at making it official, i.e., under the moderation of community-appointed clerks, instead of a self-appointed one. But I prefer to have, in fact, a distributed process, because it can avoid useless debate over how the moderation is done. Don't like how someone is moderating a page like this, start your own. Do it better, and it will be used. So "making this official" could consist of centralizing reference to these pages, setting some guidelines about them, and possibly monitoring them for activity in various ways. But that's down the road.


 * Wikis get stuck with process that was adequate when they started, but that gradually breaks down with scale and time. What I'm doing is disconcerting to some, because it is not familiar. Please understand, though. This isn't being crammed down anyone's throat. You want to file requests here, fine. Custodians want to respond to requests here, fine. Custodians want to respond to requests on my page, that's okay, too. Isn't it? Why not? Could I place a request on my Talk page, say, and could a custodian respond to that? Could I place the request on a custodian's talk page? (That's done all the time!) Could I raise it on IRC? (That is more or less encouraged, but it is a Bad Idea, because the logs aren't public.) How about by email? I bet that's being done frequently? Are you objecting to that Other Stuff, Thenub? If not, why are you objecting to an open, transparent, and fully voluntary process, that avoids long discussions. Like this. --Abd 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with so much of what is written above, that I see it fruitlss to discuss it further. I will only answer the questions you asked directly to me, to be polite.  Yes I do object to people misusing talk pages for administrative requests, and I feel IRC and email should be used when, for some reason, an immediate response is needed.  I am sure I have said this to multiple people in IRC at some point or another.  If you would like to see onwiki evidence that I actually do hold this position, I started to make some comments about it at Jtniel's community review (in the discussion page?) at some point in the past.  In short I do object to this "other stuff" you mention.  Requests for custodian action (in my unpopular opinion) belong here, with only limited exceptions. The discussions can be long, but I always thought discussion was intended to be a integral part of wikiversity. The sentence starting "If not, why …", doesn't end in a question mark so I am taking it that it is rhetorical. Thenub314 11:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of arguments re user custodian request pages
I just did some archiving of WV:Request custodian action, and, to me, from this, the need for process like what I've created with User:Abd/Request custodian action is clear. The main request page here becomes a coatrack for discussion, often repetitive, often with axes to grind. It's not that there is something wrong with discussing requests, it is that there is no discrimination between routine requests and controversial ones. Good wiki process keeps controversies from becoming widespread discussions until it is seen that they cannot be adequately resolved at a low level. We already have the lowest-level structure in place, that rises above "anything goes." That is, certain kinds of actions can only be taken by sysops. Many of this are so accustomed to this that we don't realize that the earliest wiki communities largely functioned differently, when they were small, everyone had sysop tools, except for the ability to make permanent deletions, and to change certain basic permissions. Wikipedia established guidelines for dispute resolution that provided for slow escalation; i.e., if two users (which would include two sysops or a sysop and a non-sysop) cannot resolve an issue, a third person becomes involved, typically at the request of one user, sometimes at the request of both.

In theory, sysops are supposed to have no advantage over non-sysops, and this is established by the principle of recusal, which is that a sysop is expected, absent emergency, to abstain from using tools to further the sysop's own position in a dispute. Sysop actions are supposed to be neutral.

On Wikipedia, though, an alternate method of dispute resolution appeared: w:WP:AN and w:WP:ANI, pages intended for sysop announcements and discussion (the former) or for ordinary users to request sysop action (the latter). Included in the latter would be a sysop under a recusal requirement to request action by a neutral sysop.

However, these pages, originally imagined as relatively simple request/response pages, or for sysop discussion, became heavy discussion pages, whenever an action was not simple. And as the user based exploded, even relatively simple requests sometimes triggered massive discussion. The sheer volume of requests there made watching that page a burden, and, so, gradually, participation there often narrowed to the most contentious editors (and sysops), except for others whose attention might have been attracted by a Talk page notice on a watched Talk page. And AN and ANI became pages for "community consensus" to be determined on such matters as bans, completely bypassing the designed dispute resolution process, which provided for escalating discussion, all the way up to ArbComm.

(Wikipedia also spun out various specific request pages, such as RfPP, 3RR, Spam-blacklist, etc.)

It is a system that, if it had actually been designed, would have been designed to fail, or perhaps to give power to the most biased of editors. It is part of why Wikipedia often deviates, in actual practice, from the ideals expressed in the guidelines and policies.

Doing the archiving, I was struck by how few requests for WV custodian action there were, before, say, June of this year. For the entire year, July 2009 to June 2010, there are only 11 requests, and about 7 of them weren't requests for action, they were requests for information or some kind of discussion, probably filed on this page because the filer thought that more experienced users, i.e., custodians, perhaps, would see it. At least one request for help was filed, and received no response at all, except for someone, later, asking if anyone had responded! No response to that.

I'm only a moderately active user here, yet from 20 August to 25 August, I filed 10 requests for custodian action on my "user request" page. Of these, 8 were done, one was declined in discussion on the main Request page (and, my opinion, had I taken the requested action as a custodian, there would have been no objection at all to it, it was more conservative than some of the range blocking I've seen), and the other is pending. Some of these requests, when not receiving direct response from listing on my user page, resulted in substantial discussion on the main request page. Some of this discussion could have been avoided. Discussion when it is not necessary is disruptive, in general.

I'm not complaining about discussion, per se, but rather only about discussion that (1) prevents the low-level dispute resolution process or routine spreading of custodial responsibilities through the entire user base, and its design efficiency, and/or (2) leads to no resolution or action to improve the project. Generally, there are other and better places to discuss, say, policy, or to discuss alleged abuse by a user. If one is requesting a block, that is, a specific action, then a request page is appropriate. In my view, a primary request page should be reserved for actions that might be appropriate for a single custodian to take, without a discussion. If someone then wishes to discuss the action, then they have someone specific to start discussing it with, the acting custodian.

If someone requests a neutral second opinion, the request should state and reference a prior custodial action (or refusal to act). Second opinions should be neutral, and based on investigation, which can include, if needed in the judgment of the custodian taking the request, soliciting testimony or requesting opinions (including that of a prior custodian involved.) What it boils down to is a single person, hopefully neutral, at least initially, who looks at the case behind the request and makes a decision. This can be a highly efficient system. It is possible that it could be extended beyond, say, two denials, or a denial and a reversal, but most consider that at this point wider discussion is needed by that time, I'm merely proposing that, as our scale increases, we might consider how to extend this to reduce the need for broader discussion by expanding the small-scale process a bit.

Discussion for its own sake is largely to be avoided on "public pages." They are fine in user space, if the user consents.

We have a process for deletion of pages, there are basically three methods.
 * 1) 1. custodian deletes directly. This, in theory, should only be done if the custodian does not expect controversy, or, alternatively, if the custodian seeing it considers the deletion and emergency; in the latter case, the custodian should always request review. A request page like mine could be useful for this; it would be requesting that a neutral custodian review the action and confirm or reverse it, or, alternatively, to investigate it, which might include soliciting comment in some way.
 * 2) 2. user places a speedy deletion tag on the page. As a custodian, I often did this, simply to set up the process and give a user an opportunity to respond. I was a bit shocked to find pages with speedy deletion tags on them where the user had never been notified. Speedy deletion is efficient if two rules are followed: first, the user is notified. The page is only speedy deleted if the user does not respond and remove the tag. We should set up process discriminating between two kinds of speedy deletion: a request by a user who considers a page a hazard to the project, not merely out-of-scope or relatively useless, and requests other than that, routine clean-up. It is possible that the former class would use a request page like mine. The problem with the speedy deletion system is that it depends on the category, and it depends on a sysop actually looking at the category periodically. Something that will appear on a watchlist is better for something that requires rapid action. My own request page is designed to keep traffic to a minimum, that's why discussion is inhibited on that page. It is designed to be an almost pure request page, almost like a category, except it can be watchlisted.
 * 3) 3. Requests for deletion. I'm of the opinion that unless a user truly wants wide discussion of a page deletion, this isn't the page to use first. Rather, speedy deletions that are declined, if the user suggesting deletion isn't satisfied, could be appealed here on a small-scale request for custodian action page, for a neutral review by a single custodian. In a more mature system designed to work on a larger scale, I'd require at least two users to sign off on a request before it is debated. It would be like a person standing up in a meeting and saying, "I move that we delete page X." And if, within a reasonable period of time, nobody seconds the motion, the chair will rule that it fails for lack of a second. That doesn't completely end the process: ordinarily, if someone moves it again and it's seconded, then discussion will begin. There are many aspects of wiki process that could benefit by an understanding of standard democratic process, how it protects the rights of minorities while, at the same time, protecting the majority from useless debate.

Thenub314 objected to my user request page, giving the following arguments above, my summary and responses, which I will individually sign so that responses can be specific:
 * It doesn't seem very neutral to me, but perhaps I am biased after having my comments removed. But it sounds like you want to have a page where you can make requests where an administrator who generally agrees with you and trusts you can review these requests and make the changes, how is this neutral? 
 * That wouldn't be neutral. But:
 * I cannot limit those who watch this page to some friendly administrator, and if I wanted to ping a friendly administrator in some improper way, i.e., to obtain a biased action, why would I use this page? Why not email, for example? Efficient, and completely not transparent.
 * So this page is for open requests, asking for any neutral administrator to act. If there is an administrator who trusts me, that I'm not likely to make frivolous requests, a waste of time to review, that administrator may watch this page. If another admin detects some pattern of biased action, that administrator can also watch the page.
 * This is a user page. It is not required to be neutral. In particular, I'm taking advantage of user space freedom and general privilege to create a moderated page, without going through the extensive and often useless discussion of creating something like this in WV space. I'm the moderator of the page -- though I've also asked for other volunteers to clerk. Anyone could start a page like this, as much alike it as they like, or different if they think something would be better, and there is no harm in these pages multiplying. If they are useful, they will be watched. If not, they have done no harm except to show us what a user would tolerate or what they, as to their own requests, would ask for, giving us a clue, if this person is not a custodian, as to how they would act if they were one. I have the practice of adding [recused] to a request if I would not have taken the action itself were I a custodian, for reason of personal involvement. In the case of one action (one that is currently pending), recusal would not be needed, because, as a custodian, I'd have been able to read the page, and that's really the core of my request. I would not have undeleted without discussion, due to the nature of the underlying controversy. I'd have asked for review, just as I did. --Abd 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * this system for making requests is inherently lacking in transparency and neutrality.
 * This statement is equivalent to saying that a user is not neutral. Like, duh! However, I will, if necessary, contend that, as to moderation of this page, I've been acting neutrally. Evidence for this would be that Thenub314 filed a request for deletion of the user request page, on it. Now, in my view, that request doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being acted on. For starters, wrong process, he should have used speedy deletion. And, of course, I'd have removed the tag immediately, and he'd have had only one reasonable option at this point: to go to Requests for deletion. But because he filed this as a custodian request, I left it. And it will stay until someone neutral denies it, or possibly be archived for lapse of time. No hurry. I'd say, a month is reasonable as a maximum.
 * As to transparency, this is fully transparent. Currently, when there are new requests on the page, I'm pinging the main request page. That I will not necessarily keep up, if there are enough custodians watching the page who acknowledge it (there is a place to do that on the page.) I will generally ping the main page periodically, if there is a standing request. If I consider the matter urgent, I may repeat the request on the main request page. Anyone who is concerned about possible abuse of this page can watch it. --Abd 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that no custodian replies to requests for action unless they are placed on the appropriate page (including my own) so that everyone may comment.
 * I hope that neutral custodians will take action whenever they become aware of a reason to act, and that they will take responsibility for their own action, disclosing fully the basis for it.
 * A very good sysop on Wikipedia was desysopped because he had used his tools (quite properly, actually, given the circumstances) based on a request on a private mailing list. Sad case, actually, this was one of the best, a sociologist who has published peer-reviewed papers about Wikipedia. I've been trying to induce him to come on over here!
 * In any case, what if he had written: "semipro, reasons obvious, as a result of review per private suggestion"? I'm pretty sure that an opposing faction would have raised a great fuss, but ... they'd have lost. The action itself was blatantly correct, and how the sysop learned about the situation, in the end, was a less important issue. In the later ArbComm case, there was no claim that the action, semiprotection of an article to interrupt IP revert warring, was wrong. Just the very idea of private canvassing horrified the arbitrators, and they wanted to explicitly "set an example." But, of course, it happens all the time, and those acting based on private information include arbitrators. --Abd 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * discussion was intended to be a integral part of wikiversity
 * Only under certain circumstances. Most activity on the wiki is not discussed. By far. Discussion is only needed when there is a disagreement or dispute, or, alternatively, some principle or guideline to be worked out, some issue requiring exploration. And where the discussion takes place is crucial. Some discussions should take place in user space, and this includes an initial objection to a sysop action, which should generally be on the sysop's talk page. Or, if the action was a block, say, on the user talk page of the blocked editor. Only if this initial discussion fails to find agreement, and a participant is not satisfied with the status quo, should the matter escalate to broader discussion, perhaps starting with attempting to find a single other user, or sysop, to review it. The request for that, itself, should generally not be a matter of discussion, this is an example of what, under Robert's Rules of Order, is an undebatable motion. It's a kind of referral to a (very small) committee. It "passes" when the user making the request finds a "second," i.e., someone agrees to investigate, to hear the dispute, and to participate in finding consensus. Discussing it broadly, ab initio, defeats the very purpose of the motion! It's to attempt to resolve a dispute where it is easiest to resolve, by direct discussion among a very small number of participants, with one, hopefully, being dedicated to neutrality and finding consensus, where possible, or otherwise acting based on the welfare of the project and community, having been initially neutral and having become familiar with the issues. --Abd 17:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why I reverted Moulton's reversion of my collapse of his long comment.
Moulton disrupts process and discussions with massive comment and occupation of space. It's ironic that he claims I do this. I would not ordinarily revert a neutral collapse of my comments, I've replaced them with references to history, etc., all to respect the legitimate complaint that my comments might be "too much." Because Moulton just demonstrated on IRC his practice of massive disruption of process, specifically a request for attention to the RCA report, I have reverted his removal of my collapse of his comment. My intention is to do so until requested not to do this by a custodian, thus I am, technically, declaring an intention to revert war on the RCA page. I will stop immediately on request by any custodian, who would thereby be assuring me that there is attention. The RCA page is for requests for custodian action. It is not a trial. When one calls 911, a trial is not initiated. Rather, 911 will dispatch emergency personnel who will investigate and act as needed to protect the public welfare. They do not convict of crime, they do not punish, they only protect.

One of the errors made, early on, on Wikipedia, was allowing ANI to become a debate forum. Debate should have been disallowed there. Rather, an admin should "take" a case when reported, investigate, and act as needed, reporting the action at ANI. Others interested would advise the administrator, on administrative talk or other talk pages as needed, not ANI. Because of the massive debate -- since ANI reports almost always involved controversy -- ANI became largely unwatchable, defeating the purpose. --Abd 15:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Moulton has continued to revert war on the report. For the two current revisions, see Moulton's version and my version. As can readily be seen, Moulton's version buries the complaint JoshuaZ has lodged in a pile of irrelevant "evidence," which includes offensive use of real names, etc. My version does not exclude Moulton's evidence, but collapses it for review and redacts the real name, which is completely irrelevant both to the custodian request and to Moulton's "defense." The "defense" is, in fact, an offense, both against JoshuaZ and others, and to Wikiversity process, he is deliberately attempting to bury the sense in a pile of incoherent comment. I intend to continue reverting until it becomes unnecessary or contrary to consensus or administrative action, see above. --Abd 17:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Moulton is also conducting discussion through revert war edit summaries, and has not, so far, joined in discussion here. His last revert summary was (Anything you undo I can do faster, I can do anything faster than you.) That's Moulton's game -- assertion of personal power regardless of the welfare of the wiki -- it is not mine. I happen to notice that, with time, the number of our reverts is either at equality, 1:1, or differs from that by only one revert, with Moulton leading. Given that my goal of insisting on this rather minor point, besides the original goal of the collapse of making discussion clear, is to attract custodian attention, as well as to compactly demonstrate to meta stewards, should that become necessary, the lack of such effective attention at Wikiversity, thus the need for intervention, I care not at all about "fast." If Moulton wants to do this faster, he can simply revert himself, then revert again, thus gaining an advantage over me in this "race." --Abd 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sock puppetry. Most of us know that User:Caprice and User:Moulton are the same editor, but someone else looking at the discussion and the revert war might not, and could then think that I'm revert warring against two editors. So far, not. If I were, I'd be far more cautious. --Abd 16:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Happened to NewYorkBrad's Guiding Principles of Diligent Jurisprudence
This discussion was first moved here because it was not a Request for custodian action. It had received response, however. Moulton reverted his original "request" -- which was for "attention," implying community attention, which is not the function of the RCA page. I have accordingly moved the full discussion to the Colloquium: Colloquium. --Abd 17:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

first revert Moulton added prefatory remark: I once again raise to the attention of the responsible leadership here  replacing his original Ladies and gentlemen of the community, I raise to your attention ....

However, again, there was no request for any custodian action. Custodians are not the "responsible leadership of the community." They are servants of the community, and if they have become the "responsible leadership," the situation has become untenable. I reverted. Moulton did not replace the full discussion, but just his original "issue," thus creating a fork, where the same issue would be discussed in two places. That serves his purpose, to attract as much attention as possible to his complaints, but does not serve the community, the opposite.

bald revert by Moulton (no discussion), in spite of request in my revert to See Talk.

revert by Moulton with edit summary: (Are there any custodians who care to reconsider the wisdom of Darklama's deleterious actions and, by miraculous means of Gnosimnesic Recovery, restore to our awareness the long-lost guidance of NYB's Guiding Principles of Diligent Jurisprudence?) If this is the request, to consider undeletion, then the request should be placed on RfD. However, in fact, this is a complex request that could involve cross-wiki issues, matters which have been reviewed before, etc. I expect that the best venue is indeed, at this moment, the Colloquium, which is where the discussion -- which did include the response of a custodian -- has already been moved. Moulton's demand, through reversion, that the matter be raised here, in addition, is tendentious with no justification in substance, i.e., any reasonable desire to have a discussion seeking consensus, and will act to reduce the possibility of that. I've reverted again, and intend to continue until asked to stop by a custodian, who would thereby be taking responsibility for the state of the page, which is fine with me. It's a page for custodians, after all. --Abd 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Darklama restored the full request with the full original discussion, I replaced that with a link to the Colloquium discussion. Darklama on IRC seems to have consented to this.

Moulton reverted the original request back in, thus the effect is to recreate the discussion without the original responses, which is contrary to the position of both Darklama and myself, and continuing his apparent goal of spreading out discussion to multiple fora, whether appropriate or not. He also prefaced my summary of his request with a header, "Abd's Request to the Custodians," thus presenting his request, inferred from his edit summary, as if it were mine. --Abd 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Moulton continued to revert. With this one he added an explanation to a term, but explanations like this belong in the full discussion on the Colloquium, not to his fishing for special response from custodians on the RCA page. Custodians are not the "leaders of the community." And if he's requesting undeletion, there is some substantial agreement that this should be done at the RfD page, not on the RCA page. He's also looking for some kind of major condemnation of prior actions, which would be for the Colloquium, for sure, or, better, for a Community Review if consensus cannot be found at the Colloquium. --Abd 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Report.Guido reverted to the darklama version (darklama himself did not care if the discussion was on RCA or the Colloquium, but did think that, wherever it was, it should be the full discussion, not the truncated version Moulton was restoring. I agree.) SBJ removed the image of Gaddafi, per Godwin's law. However, this did not address the forking question. Since Moulton was insisting on the full discussion being on RCA, and there were now two custodians who didn't object to that, I yanked the discussion from the Colloquium, since nobody but myself had responded there, and moved my single comment to this discussion, fixing the forking problem. Weirdly, SBJ had indicated on IRC that he didn't understand why this wasn't on the Colloquium. I'll answer him here: it's not on the Colloquium because you did not support the move there, but, instead, fixed this discussion instead of the one there, which also had the image of Gaddafi. Enjoy. It's quite possible that this junk is less disruptive here than on the Colloquium.
 * One problem with Guido's change. He removed my own request for custodian action. I'll restore it in some way. --Abd 20:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I put your alternative request to custodians back in.  It's important to maintain balance and to offer alternatives.  —Moulton 21:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Now it's SBJ revert warring on RCA.

 * TCNSV archived discussion, fulfilled RCA request.
 * SBJ reverted archive because it's still under discussion
 * I reverted SBJ, because RCA is not a proper place to discuss, that's an old process error that has done a lot of damage. It is a place to request attention and to notify the community that action has been taken or declined. That should happen quickly, or RCA is broken. Yes. It's broken, but we can start to fix it.
 * SBJ reverted, pointing to IRC, which should be irrelevant. If Darklama wants this open, fine! DL's choice! but DL is perfectly capable of doing it. It would not be revert warring (which I define as repeated assertion of a text state, by a single user, without discussion and effort to obtain consensus, against another or others; it is more clearly a problem when it is between one user and more than one other.) --Abd 17:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Abd, I had 2 edit conflicts while trying to add an edit about block length. First was with you, the second (which I didn't notice until after saving) was with the other guy "closing". Closing a discussion that's ongoing is just silly. Putting a collapse box around the back and forth between you and him might not be a bad idea, but you two weren't the only people having a conversation. --SB_Johnny talk 17:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * SBJ, you might be "right," but that misses the point. I'm not going to revert you because that would simply increase the traffic, but TCNSV was responding to my suggestion that this wasn't the place to discuss the block. User talk for the blocked editor, or user talk for the blocking custodian, or the talk page for RCA, perhaps. What will leaving it open do? Is this a community discussion page? If it needs a community discussion, the Colloquium would bring in more of the community, this is supposedly a page to be watched by custodians. Is someone asking for another custodian to look at the situation?


 * That's what an unblock template is for. But someone could ask for that. That would be a reason, in fact, to re-open, or to add something underneath the archive template. It hadn't been moved off the page yet! Procedurally, bad move, SBJ. Do you think we should encourage people to tear each other apart? By giving it attention on RCA? --Abd 17:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As to collapse around the back-and-forth, I actually thought of doing this, but didn't because, from history, I'd expect TCNSV to object, creating even more mishegas. You could do it, though. --Abd 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Darklama asked a question, and while you answered it, he hasn't responded. I don't see why this is a "bad" place for the discussion, either.
 * Red link &rarr; WV:3RR. Please drop it. Or don't, but don't expect further response. --SB_Johnny talk 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding Abd's re-closure, I would have undone him myself if SB Johnny reverted me, because I trust his judgment and he gave a perfectly good explanation in his revert summary, as well as my belief that thread closing is meant to only be non-controversial with whatever initial issue arose there fulfilled or the thread digressing out of its scope. However, after SB Johnny's reopening the thread and causing the revert war, I'd have expected a more reasonable explanation of such an action given on the page itself instead of the edit summary. The disappointment was accompanied by a loss of support, until, and I am glad he did so, SB Johnny gave his reasoning here; and I hope that all it was was an unfortunate misunderstanding arising from a mere edit conflict. TeleComNasSprVen 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is what it is. This isn't a request for custodian action, I was just noting the revert warring. You'd have been fine to revert my revert, TCNSV, because your change opinion would mean simply that you had changed your mind. However, I don't find your explanation above coherent. Revert warring is a general wiki problem, and no claim was made of 3RR violation, so SBJ's response above is just plain weird, and he didn't address the substantive issues, nor, apparently, does he plan to. His privilege, he's a volunteer. However, does an action become useful because there is no policy prohibiting it? Later, we can look back and see what the ultimate outcome was of re-opening, and maybe have a sense of its wisdom. Or not. I wasn't pursuing this. The real issue is the proper place for discussions, and I'll address that later. This is just one more example to look at. There are many. --Abd 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A stern reminder from Peter Sellers
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room. —President Merkin Muffley 18:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgotten password
Hi, I created an account a couple of weeks ago and the password I thought I used (and other variations of it) isn't working. I didn't put in my email address when I created the account so the Email new password function isn't working. I'd prefer not to create a new account if possible as it will leave an unused old account in the system and I want to respond to a comment made on my talk page. What can I do?--121.45.193.206 01:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Start a new account. Leaving an old account causes practically no harm. It's possible to usurp the old account, but one step at a time. This time, set up email! Meanwhile, you can respond to a comment, as IP, anyway, just like you made this edit. We just won't have proof it was you by password. --Abd 03:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)