Wikiversity:Babel

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search

Geographylogo.svg Wikiversity:BabelБългарски · Русский · Svenska

Babel
Italiano: Nei limiti del possibile, lasciate i vostri messaggi nella pagina di discussione dell'articolo e inserite in questa pagina solo il link alla discussione.
Français: Dans la mesure du possible, veuillez laisser vos messages dans la page discussion de l'article concerné et n'insérer ici qu'un lien vers ce message.
Svenska: I den mån det är möjligt, vänligen lämna ditt fullständiga meddelande på artikelns diskussionssida, och skriv sedan bara någon enstaka rad här med en länk till meddelandet.
العربية: رجاء اترك رسائلك على صفحة النقاش للمقالة ذات الصلة بالتفاصيل الكاملة، واترك سطرا واحدا فقط هنا مع الرابط إليه.
中文: 请尽量在讨论页发表你的详细意见,只在本页用一行写下你的意见摘要,然后做个链接连到即可。/請儘量在討論頁發表你的詳細意見,只在本頁用一行寫下你的意見摘要,然後做個鏈結連到即可。
Türkçe: Mümkün olduğu kadar, mesajlarınızı tartışma sayfasına bırakın ve orada uzun bir şekilde açıklayın. Buraya ise sadece mesajınızın bulunduğunu belirten bir yazı yazarak mesajınıza link verin
Русский:Здесь находится многоязычный форум, где можно обсудить любые вопросы. По возможности, оставляйте ваши комментарии непосредственно на странице обсуждения соответствующей статьи Вики, а на данной странице помещайте только ссылку туда.
ไทย: การอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับหัวข้อเรื่องใดๆ กรุณาเขียนไว้ที่ หน้าพูดคุย ของเรื่องนั้นๆ และทำลิ้งก์จากหน้านี้ไปสู่หัวข้อเรื่องนั้น โดยเขียนไม่ควรเกินหนึ่งบรรทัด.
Deutsch: Sofern möglich, hinterlasse Deine Nachrichten auf der Diskussionseite des betreffenden Artikels und plaziere hier lediglich einen Link dorthin.
Português: Preferencialmente, deixe suas mensagens na página de discussão do artigo correspondente com os detalhes completos, deixando aqui apenas uma simples linha com link para a mesma.
Беларуская: Калі гэта толькі магчыма, калі ласка, пакідайце свае каментарыі непасрэдна на старонцы «Talk» адпаведнага артыкулу Вікі, а на дадзенай старонцы пакідайце толькі спасылку туды.
فارسی: لطفاً پیغام های خود را با جزئیات کامل در صفحه بحث مربوط به این مقاله قرار دهید و یک خط بنویسید و آن را به پیغام خود لینک کنید
Български:Това е многоезичен форум, в който могат да се обсъждат всякакви въпроси. По възможност, пишете вашите коментарии непосредствено на беседата на съответната статия, а тук поставяйте само връзки до тях.
Dansk: Prøv så vidt muligt at skrive dine beskeder på de relevante artiklers diskussionssider og blot sætte et link til den her.
Ripoarisch: Wann möschlėsh, donn_Dinge Bëijdraach op dė Klaaf_Sigk fun_däm_Atikkel wo_t_dröm_jëijd, un pak_hee enne Lėngk_drop henn.
日本語: くわしい話はなるべく関連するページのノートに書いておき、ここにはそこへのリンクを添えた1行程度のメッセージだけを残すようにお願いします。
Српски / srpski: Уколико је то могуће, коментаре остављајте на одговарајућим страницама за разговор дотичних чланака, а овдје на страници за разговор можете ставити само везу ка Вашем коментару.
Slovenščina: Kolikor je le mogoče, pustite svoja sporočila z vsemi podrobnostmi na pogovorni strani ustreznega članka, tu pa naj ostane le vrstica s povezavo nanjo.
Norsk bokmål: Så langt det lar seg gjørem, skriv din beskjed på den relevante diskusjonssiden, og skriv kun ei linje som referer dit herfra.
Polski: Dopóki to możliwe, rozbudowane wiadomości prosimy umieszczać na stronach dyskusyjnych omawianych artykułów lub tematów, a w tym miejscu dodawać jedynie jednolinijkową adnotację z linkiem do dyskusji.
Occitan: Dins la mesura del possible, daissar vòstres messatges dins la pagina discutida de l'article concernat e inserir aquí pas qu'un ligam vèrs aqueste messatge.
Nederlands: Laat je gedetailleerde berichten zo veel mogelijk achter op de overlegpagina van het betreffende artikel en hier een enkele regel met een verwijzing daar naar toe.
Español: En tanto sea posible, coloca tu mensaje en la página de discusión del artículo concerniente, y deja aquí solamente una línea con un enlace hacia el mismo.
Galego: Se for posible deixe as súas mensaxes na páxina de conversa do artigo correspondente, insira nesta páxina só a ligazón cara a esa mensaxe
Čeština: Pokud je to možné, zanechte detailní zprávu na diskuzní stránce příslušnéhoho článku a sem dejte jen jednoduché vysvětlení s odkazem.
한국어: 가능하면 개별 문서의 토론 페이지에 내용을 작성하시고, 여기에는 토론 페이지의 링크와 함께 간단한 언급만 남겨주세요.
English: As far as possible, please leave your messages on the Talk page of a relevant article with full details, and leave just a single line here with a link to it.
Esperanto: Laŭeble metu vian plenan mesaĝon en la diskuton de la koncerna artikolo kaj jen nur unu linion kun ligo tien!
Brezhoneg: E kement ha ma c'hallit en ober, laoskit ho kemennadennoù war bajenn gaozeal ar pennad zo e kaoz, ha na skrivit amañ nemet ur gerig displegañ gant ul liamm.
Ελληνικά: Όσο αυτό είναι δυνατόν, παρακαλούμε αφήστε τα μηνύματά σας στη Σελίδα Συζήτησης του σχετικού άρθρου με πλήρεις λεπτομέρειες και απλώς αφήστε εδώ έναν σύνδεσμο.
Shortcuts
WV:BABEL
WV:B
WV:VP
Discussion archive
/archive


Terms of Use update[edit]

As you may be aware, given the banner notice, Wikimedia has updated its Terms of Use. This updated version will become effective on May 25, 2012, and can be reviewed here. To find out more, please visit wmf:New Terms of use/en. (Links are available at those pages to a number of different languages.) Thanks. :) --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Tamil Transliteration Tools Required[edit]

In order to translate the beta page in Tamil, we require the Extension which supports tamil typing in the beta pages. Please install it ASAP. Thanks :) -- Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

To get this you have to make a request in Bugzilla. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I do it. Crochet.david (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
request #41912 in bugzilla. Crochet.david (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Call for comments on draft trademark policy[edit]

Request for comment on Commons: Should Wikimedia support MP4 video?[edit]

I apologize for this message being only in English. Please translate it if needed to help your community.

The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team seeks community guidance on a proposal to support the MP4 video format. This digital video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video devices. It is also known as H.264/MPEG-4 or AVC.

Supporting the MP4 format would make it much easier for our users to view and contribute video on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects -- and video files could be offered in dual formats on our sites, so we could continue to support current open formats (WebM and Ogg Theora).

However, MP4 is a patent-encumbered format, and using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only supporting open formats on our sites -- even though the licenses appear to have acceptable legal terms, with only a small fee required.

We would appreciate your guidance on whether or not to support MP4. Our Request for Comments presents views both in favor and against MP4 support, based on opinions we’ve heard in our discussions with community and team members.

Please join this RfC -- and share your advice.

All users are welcome to participate, whether you are active on Commons, Wikipedia, other Wikimedia project -- or any site that uses content from our free media repository.

You are also welcome to join tomorrow's Office hours chat on IRC, this Thursday, January 16, at 19:00 UTC, if you would like to discuss this project with our team and other community members.

We look forward to a constructive discussion with you, so we can make a more informed decision together on this important topic. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Universal Language Selector will be enabled by default again on this wiki by 21 February 2014[edit]

On January 21 2014 the MediaWiki extension Universal Language Selector (ULS) was disabled on this wiki. A new preference was added for logged-in users to turn on ULS. This was done to prevent slow loading of pages due to ULS webfonts, a behaviour that had been observed by the Wikimedia Technical Operations team on some wikis.

We are now ready to enable ULS again. The temporary preference to enable ULS will be removed. A new checkbox has been added to the Language Panel to enable/disable font delivery. This will be unchecked by default for this wiki, but can be selected at any time by the users to enable webfonts. This is an interim solution while we improve the feature of webfonts delivery.

You can read the announcement and the development plan for more information. Apologies for writing this message only in English. Thank you. Runa 12:30, 19 February 2014‎

Amendment to the Terms of Use[edit]

Call for project ideas: funding is available for community experiments[edit]

IEG key blue.png

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

Do you have an idea for a project that could improve your community? Individual Engagement Grants from the Wikimedia Foundation help support individuals and small teams to organize experiments for 6 months. You can get funding to try out your idea for online community organizing, outreach, tool-building, or research to help make Wikiversity better. In March, we’re looking for new project proposals.

Examples of past Individual Engagement Grant projects:

Proposals are due by 31 March 2014. There are a number of ways to get involved!

Hope to have your participation,

--Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 19:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed optional changes to Terms of Use amendment[edit]

Hello all, in response to some community comments in the discussion on the amendment to the Terms of Use on undisclosed paid editing, we have prepared two optional changes. Please read about these optional changes on Meta wiki and share your comments. If you can (and this is a non english project), please translate this announcement. Thanks! Slaporte (WMF) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion policy[edit]

A user made a change to Template:Delete that represents a change of policy. The user had been revert warring over the placement of a deletion template, and was insisting that removal of the template required a custodian.[] In spite of multiple warnings and notices and requests to discuss the deletion on the attached Talk page, the user kept replacing it, until finally a Chinese custodian showed up and removed the template. It was already obvious that the page would be kept, because that custodian had already edited the page.

Deletion on WMF wikis is traditionally subject to community consensus; the default, if there is no consensus to delete, is for the page to be kept. However, speedy deletion is a way to quickly delete files that, uncontroversially, should not be kept, without requiring discussion. Administrators have no special right to make deletion decisions; but routinely make such decisions when consensus is clear, or is reasonably expected to be clear.

If any user considers the deletion inappropriate, there is no consensus for deletion, hence, traditionally, any user may remove the speedy deletion template, and if anyone still thinks the file should be deleted, then they may start a discussion. Following en.wikipedia practice, and except for very clearly inappropriate or illegal pages, administrators do not speedy delete in the presence of any opposition; rather, the page goes to Articles for deletion or similar discussion pages.

The template has always stated this. In discussion on the attached talk page, I had pointed to the text of the template. So the user changed the template! I have reverted this (and accepted one change that was obvious.) However, if possible, the community should affirm policy. --Abd (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The user reverted my change again,[1] and has now argued for the change,[2] showing that he thinks administrators are specially qualified to make deletion decisions without community discussion. His change requires custodians to do "thorough investigation" before deleting, but speedy deletion is designed for deletions not requiring such investigation. His idea places the burden on custodians, exclusively.
He has shown by recent behavior that he will revert endlessly, if not stopped, as he was stopped on en.wikiversity.[3]. I have had a request open on Wikiversity:Request custodian action/En for days now, with no action. I now have two choices: abandon Beta to this disruptive user, or revert war. Because of the warning of David.crochet, I'm risking being blocked at any time, so I might as well at least attempt to keep the deletion template, widely used, in its previous state. Hence I intend to do that, until this matter is resolved. Please, Beta users, act to defend your wiki and your community rights. --Abd (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The immediate situation was resolved when a custodian edited the template, making it clear that the change the user was revert warring to try to make was rejected, and protected the template. However, long-term, I'm concerned by the lack of response here and on Wikiversity:Request custodian action/En. --Abd (talk) 23:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon[edit]

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

  • April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
  • April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team 23:04, 31 March 2014‎

Disable local upload[edit]

Please translate this message as you find it appropriate.

Per Requests for comment/Disable local uploads on smaller wikis, Local uploads policy, Commons:Turning off local uploads and the licensing policy resolution passed by the Wikimedia Foundation, it is hereby required that "[a]s of March 23, 2007, any newly uploaded files under an unacceptable license shall be deleted", unless and until Beta Wikiversity decides to adopt a policy for non-free files. This is a formal notification/proposal to turn off local upload following the policies of other wikis (e.g. French Wikinews) and to redirect the upload link in the sidebar "Importer un fichier"/"Upload file" to point automatically to the upload page at Commons. This will not only comply with the licensing resolution but also enable better file curation by Commons administrators to ensure files are uploaded properly and clearly designated with a free license. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think we dont need non free files.--Juandev (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought we accepted some fair use, didn't we? Vogone (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I dont know if fair use is under non free term. Regarding fair use, I dont know. But some languages doesnt tolerate them as their legal system doesnt recognise them (en versus cs).--Juandev (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I am personally also against fair use but I think it should be allowed here in case a test community decides to use it. And yes, fair use counts as non-free as it isn't allowed to upload fair use content to Commons. Vogone (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Vogone, can you please clarify why it should be allowed here? Are you saying that Wikiversity language editions hosted here should develop a translatable test EDP page for Beta Wikiversity? I'm not against establishing an EDP here to satisfy the licensing resolution, but as Juandev notes it might be difficult to enforce properly due to competing Wikiversity content jurisdictions (which "section" of Beta Wikiversity falls under which EDP), and Beta Wikiversity has no clear audience (e.g. English Wikipedia's EDP is sufficient because it targets English speakers, German Wikipedia targets German speakers, etc). Don't forget because Beta Wikiversity is accessible by anyone, someone from Chinese Wikiversity, which might not have suitable EDP, might access a non-free file intended for Turkish Wikiversity's EDP. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
"Non-free use" is a general term that covers "fair use," a term that applies under U.S. copyright law, i.e., one may use copyrighted material in certain ways, without requiring the permission of the copyright owner. This is especially relevant for nonprofit uses, where, usually, the remedy of a copyright owner is to request take-down of the material. It's not illegal, fair use, at least not in the U.S, and creates no liability if a takedown notice is properly respected (and the WMF handles that). Another form of fair use is cc-by-sa-NC, ie., freely usable material but only free for noncommercial use. It can occur, easily, that such material is valuable for an educational resource. The English Wikiversity has an EDP policy, based on the English Wikipedia policy. Such usage under the EDP is to be, by WMF policy, limited, and must be accompanied by a "non-free use rationale."
Having said this, administering file licensing can be a nightmare. It can get extraordinarily complex; my sense of Commons is that even experts get it wrong, fairly often, or, more accurately, even experts can't predict what Commons will decide. Local argument on licensing is often highly misinformed. So disabling local uploads is an option, let Commons handle it, but that does disallow fair use and other non-free usages, which are permitted if we have an Exemption Doctrine Policy. Having a separate policy for each language here would be a nightmare, again.
I have proposed simplified procedures on en.wikiversity for handling non-free use; with the more complex procedures in place, the result is that license issues are often not addressed at all, until later, when someone -- usually TeleCom! -- comes along and points out that the i's were not dotted and the t was missing a crossbar. The user is long gone, and the resource will be damaged if the file is deleted .... The crucial interest of the WMF in its resolution on licensing is that any non-free use be "machine-readably tagged." That will allow a re-user to identify this material and make choices about it. Nonprofit re-users will have no problem, they will generally protected by the same legal conditions as we are. But for-profit users may need to do some work. And the WMF is trying to lessen that work by forcing us to do it. I.e, finding or creating fully free files, when we already have something we could legally use.
There is nothing wrong with the goal of free use. However, if that conflicts with the quality of resources, which is more important? We are obligated, here, to follow WMF policy, but we do have substantial freedom as to how to do that.
Frankly, though, I don't see that Beta has the community resources to make the necessary decisions, it has often taken months to get a custodian promoted, requests for custodian action sit unattended for a long time, participation in discussions is weak, and the community is balkanized. So I would not oppose shutting down uploads here. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Vogone, can I please get a clarification of your opinion, before I send this off to the developers? Perhaps Incubator would have a better structured system to deal with fair use files for their respective test projects, but as it stands Beta Wikiversity lacks many of Incubator's structured systems. That was one of the reasons to move it off and merge it with Incubatorwiki. IMO, as explained having a separate EDP for each language wiki might be cumbersome to enforce. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer but I always thought, regarding fair use, that we Europeans are only not allowed to upload unfree fair use files but can't be made responsible for accessing (not downloading) them through the web. So I believe we could enforce an EDP and those test projects who intend to continue using it after they got a wiki with an own subdomain could apply it to their test and those who don't (probably tests used and accessed mostly by Europeans) could still refrain from applying it to their test. Vogone (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Lithuanian namespace aliases[edit]

Just for your information: Wikiversity:Kavinė diskusijoms#Namespace aliases. In case you have any strong objections to this change, please note it there. Thanks. Vogone (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

List of active users for a specific language[edit]

I think it would be nice, to have a lists of users who has knowledge of a specific language and has an account here at Wikiversity Beta. Its for those language versions, which are for a long time in preparation. If someone new, comes and he'd/she'd like to continue with development, this person may easily contact former or whatever person, who has skills in that language and invite them to contribute.

For example. I noticed that user:Kusurija, who works on Lithuanian wv, founded the category:Contributors LT and moved some editors of lt, he knows to that category. Of course, you may have a look on the lithuanian page histories and dig users from there. But isnt this user unfriendly?

On the other side, we use to have categories of congributors by language using {{Babel}}, unfortunately some of us, push to use Magic Word instead, which doesnt have such option. And the tool linked by Crochet.david lists all contributors, so if you import here pages from other projects, these users are on the list too, which according my opinion is not intended.--Juandev (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Juandev about that tool linked by Crochet.david is for this problem useless. Former {{Babel}} was much more useful. Properly working former {{Babel}} not being is great loss for some (maybe all?) Mediawiki projects. This not being makes co-operations very hard (also as for to find co-laborers). --Kusurija (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's possible to enable categorisation for the babel magic work. It only requires consensus and a request on Bugzilla and I personally would support enabling that. Vogone (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If it will work properly, I strongly agree. If will not work properly, I'd not be sure as much. --Kusurija (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
See e.g. my userpage on Wikidata or on Minang Wikipedia where #babel plus categorisation works perfectly. Vogone (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering if that is an option. Yes, I think it would help. Even not all users use Babel on their user page it still helps. Moreover, we may ask newbies to use babel than.--Juandev (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but I can't use bugzilla or IRC canals, as my PC is weak and crashes after joining. --Kusurija (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to understand what happened here. Juandev added the Babel template to his user page. David.crochet changed that to the "magic word," which creates a similar display, but does not add the user to language categories. Since I know that Juandev is also User:Juan de Vojníkov, I looked there, and see that his user page had the Babel template, which was changed by Crochet.david.bot to use the magic word.[4] These raised my eyebrows a bit, since normally the wikis don't allow others to edit one's user page. The bot made this change to 117 user pages.[5] Looks like he also made this change manually to about 12 pages that day, and may have made others earlier. There were also elimination of manual addition of language categories, replaced with the magic word, thus removing these users from categories they had explicitly placed themselves in. Was this change ever discussed?
  • If there is a reason to use the magic word, then the magic word could be used in Template:Babel, which could still add categories. And then perhaps Crochet.david.bot could replace those templates.... It would have been better just edit the template instead.
  • Okay, reading the documentation for mw:Extension:Babel I see that there is a configuration that adds the user to categories. Looks like this was not enabled here, a configuration error, I'd say. It is in LocalSettings.php. In 2011, the category configuration was moved moved from MediaWiki namespace messages to the $wgBabelCategoryNames configuration variable. I.e, up to then, any admin could fix a problem. Now it takes a developer, if I'm correct. (Vogone was right.)
  • A bit of bait-and-switch here. #Babel was sold as locally configurable.[6] Then that was changed. Maybe a good reason for that, but ... local control slips away....
  • Again, I don't know why this was an improvement, but if it is, and short of going to Bugzilla, we can handle it by using the Babel template with the magic word #Babel incorporated. The template would simply add the magic word, using the supplied parameters, and then the categories, using the same. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64168 has now fixed this. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Vogone, general consensus in this discussion appeared to tend toward maintaining categories of certain speakers opted into the babel system before the new extension came about, in order to know who to reach when improving a certain language area. I'm not aware of any consensus for maintaining category "User xx-0", which is for users not fluent at all in that particular language, but I may be wrong. Can you please explain to me what needs to be done, and why? (And let's keep bugspam out, discuss consensus here.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
See the initial request, the idea was to replace Category:Contributors LT. Since it is also possible to contribute to a project with little knowledge of the language (which -0 also stands for), listing these users in a category makes sense. If the decision was not to list "-0" at all then also the "User xx" categories should exclude -0 users which they currently don't. Furthermore, previously on this project created -0 babel boxes also enabled -0 categories so it makes sense not to change that in #babel. Vogone (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User XX-0[edit]

I am sorry. I am lost in the above discussion about user xx-0 categories. You are saying the previous decission of Beta Wikiversity community was not to maintain user xx-0 categories? Can you link that, we can read it, please.

On the other side, now I see I am set in category Category:User lt together with others, who speak the language? Does it make a sense? Maybe I should remove lt item from my Babel box not to confuse others and not to behave ilogical.--Juandev (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I was saying, the bugzilla report was filed in response to consensus on this thread. However, in the code configuration change, "User XX-0" categories were set to false, meaning no such categories were created. Reading over this thread, I saw no discussion about maintaining "User XX-0" categories, or consensus decision to maintain them. Previous to this, Beta Wikiversity community was probably unaware of Babel extension. We could have "User XX-0" categories enabled if you want, but please tell the developers that it is what Beta Wikiversity community wants. (Vogone's arguments are quite convincing though.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
In this thread, this was the proposal: "I think it would be nice, to have a lists of users who has knowledge of a specific language and has an account here at Wikiversity Beta...If someone new, comes and he'd/she'd like to continue with development, this person may easily contact former or whatever person, who has skills in that language and invite them to contribute." "User XX-0" categories were for users who do not have knowledge of a specific language, thus they were not in the scope of the original proposal, and were not created. If there was also consensus for them, they may be created. Note that there were some that existed before the Babel extension was introduced, at Special:PrefixIndex/Category:User, some of which Vogone had just deleted. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
"You are saying the previous decission of Beta Wikiversity community was not to maintain user xx-0 categories?" No, I'm saying I have not found a previous discussion about "user xx-0" categories yet. But if there is consensus to create them they will be created.
The proposal above was for "lists of users who has knowledge of a specific language" who could be contacted, but the proposal did not mention the "user xx-0" categories, which are for "lists of users who do not have knowledge of a specific language". We still don't know if the community wants these categories or not, but Vogone supports them. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I would be fine with both solutions either enabling User xx-0 categories or disabling -0 also for User xx. But the mix of both solutions like we are having it at the moment doesn't look right to me. Vogone (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is Babel. Here we can talk.--Juandev (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

We have two options:

  1. Ask for a developer to change the settings to include "User xx-0" categories.
  2. Delete "User xx-0" categories from Special:PrefixIndex/Category:User and remove from the Babel boxes of other users.

Juandev et al, which do you prefer? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Though I personally would never make use of a User xx-0 category, I think we should let users freely decide whether they want to be included in such a category or not. Thus, I prefer #1. Vogone (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If there are no objections within a week, I think we can resubmit the request to developers at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64168 TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good.--Juandev (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems like it was implemented already. Vogone (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer[edit]


Greetings, my apologies for writing in English.

I wanted to let you know that Media Viewer will be released to this wiki in the coming weeks. Media Viewer allows readers of Wikimedia projects to have an enhanced view of files without having to visit the file page, but with more detail than a thumbnail. You can try Media Viewer out now by turning it on in your Beta Features. If you do not enjoy Media Viewer or if it interferes with your work after it is turned on you will be able to disable Media Viewer as well in your preferences. I invite you to share what you think about Media Viewer and how it can be made better in the future.

Thank you for your time. - Keegan (WMF) 21:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!


Media Viewer is now live on this wiki[edit]


Media Viewer lets you see images in larger size

Greetings,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team is happy to announce that Media Viewer was just released on this site today.

Media Viewer displays images in larger size when you click on their thumbnails, to provide a better viewing experience. Users can now view images faster and more clearly, without having to jump to separate pages — and its user interface is more intuitive, offering easy access to full-resolution images and information, with links to the file repository for editing. The tool has been tested extensively across all Wikimedia wikis over the past six months as a Beta Feature and has been released to the largest Wikipedias, all language Wikisources, and the English Wikivoyage already.

If you do not like this feature, you can easily turn it off by clicking on "Disable Media Viewer" at the bottom of the screen, pulling up the information panel (or in your your preferences) whether you have an account or not. Learn more in this Media Viewer Help page.

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about Media Viewer. You are invited to share your feedback in this discussion on MediaWiki.org in any language, to help improve this feature. You are also welcome to take this quick survey in English, en français, o español.

We hope you enjoy Media Viewer. Many thanks to all the community members who helped make it possible. - Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Status van Wikiversity[edit]

Dit Nederlandstalige bericht is geplaatst in De Kroeg of soortgelijke pagina op de projecten Wikipedia, WikiWoordenboek, Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikivoyage, Commons, Wikidata in de bestaande taalversies Nederlands, Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch en Zeeuws van deze projecten.
Dit bericht is in de eerste plaats bedoeld voor mensen die in Nederland wonen.
Voel je vrij om dit Nederlandstalige bericht te vertalen in het Fries, Limburgs, Nedersaksisch of Zeeuws.
De Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland ondersteunt onder andere het werk van de vrijwilligers die op Wikipedia of een van de zusterprojecten daarvan actief zijn.

Wat zullen ze tijdens Wikimania in Londen zeggen over Wikiversity?[edit]

Over drie weken komen Wikimedianen uit meer dan zestig landen bij elkaar in Londen. Gedurende drie dagen wisselen ze verhalen uit over wat er speelt op hun wiki project. Na Wikimania vliegen ze geïnspireerd terug naar huis, gevoed met verhalen uit de hele wereld. Welk verhaal over Wikiversity zal de wereld overgaan?
Vanuit Nederland bezoeken zeker 16 mensen Wikimania. Met welk verhaal zullen zij naar Londen gaan? Schrijf mee aan Wikiversity:Status van de wiki juli-augustus 2014 en help mee de tien punten op te sommen die Wikiversity nu tot een geweldig, grandioos, voortreffelijk project hebben gemaakt. Leef je uit en benoem wat het voor jou fantastisch maakt om mee te werken aan Wikiversity.
Nadat er tenminste tien punten zijn opgesomd die goed gaan met Wikiversity kan op Wikiversity talk:Status van de wiki juli-augustus 2014 overlegd worden over wat er minder goed gaat. Dan kan eventueel na die discussie een verbeterpunt toegevoegd worden aan de tien positieve punten op Wikiversity:Status van de wiki juli-augustus 2014.
Dank je wel! In Nederland is het nu zomer en zouden we geneigd zijn dit een zomerrapport te noemen. Het is nu op het zuidelijk halfrond winter en vandaar de aanduiding van de maanden in plaats van het jaargetijde. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

newer announcements?[edit]

Please see: e.g. Wikiversity:Announcements/En, last item from 13 months ago.
Feel free to add (e.g. from other Wikiversities' language template), ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 13:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


Is there a problem?[edit]

I see some discussion at English Wikiversity by a user from here who complains about (his) contributions here at beta being deleted, and other things. I have asked that user here to make/link some info also here, also posted a comment here: User_talk:Romaine#Why (so many) deletions?
If someone here has additional info, please contribute in gathering all pieces from these actions. Thx, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The user who is complaining doesn't do anything with the feedback many users (incl. custodians) have provided him over time. This includes copyright violations, harassments towards living people, creating pages about unknown people who do not want such, made advertisements for his own company, and much more. Here is a summary of what kind of problems there were. This also have been discussed on Wikiversity:Forum, the Dutch central discussion page. I also explained on my talk page the history. What I forgot to mention that the user who is complaining is very good in telling only half the story, especially the one which fits him. Romaine (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have another story to tell. In 2011 there was no Dutch wikiversity. Until june 2014 I was the only person who was adding information. My tactic was to write down what I found interesting. This resulted in more than 4000 pages. I agree that most of the pages were just a beginning but some learning projects were, in my opinion, actually quite good. The last couple of months we had some discussion about rules and all of a sudden a lot of pages were nominated for deletion. Regarding the future. In my opinion we should discuss about a vision on wikiversity. In think the wikiversity should be a place for learning (not only learning materials). For me learning is: having a discussion, giving your opinion and also about creating learning materials. I also believe that the wikiversity is about freedom. The learning circles/ learning communities decide how they want to set up their learning project. I asked Wikimedia Nederland for help in facilitating this discussion and I hope that people from other wikiversities will join the discussion. One of the questions is on which platform (wikimedia project) we could have a discussion. On this babel site? or can we create some sort of project page? Timboliu (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Responding to Timboliu, your general vision is correct, as to the declared project goals for Beta, but you were attempting to implement it, more or less, on your own, and without experience and restraint. Beta was, in fact, designated as a place to develop general Wikiversity approaches, but the individual Beta projects became balkanized by language. As what may be the most active Wikiversity, en.wikiversity can develop projects on "wiki studies." However, it has never developed its own clear implementation of vision, because various disagreements often left proposals without consensus, in limbo, status unclear. However, in spite of this, en.wikiversity does have functioning processes and traditions, with reasonably predictable outcomes, and we can take the hint from what happened here and develop guidelines and policies that reflect these traditions to prevent future disruption. In any case, the issues and questions are welcome on en.wikiversity. The en.wikiversity community will not, as such, make decisions for other wikis and, ultimately, Dutch users will decide policies for a Dutch Wikiversity, which can be discussed here and even implemented ad-interim. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict with above comment from Timboliu.) The above (comment from Romaine) is a view, there are other ways to look at the situation. Any way that blames wiki problems simply on a user or set of users is unlikely to point to resolution; the habit of blaming users for problems is strong on the 'pedias. It produces only transient "improvements" that, long-term, damage the projects and the communities. So, here, by way of counter-balance, I will present a different view and conclusion. What I come to first is not my conclusion, except that parts of it do represent my personal views.
Wikiversity was started not only for the creation of "educational materials," i.e., materials to be used in a classroom somewhere, in "traditional education," which tends to be very formal and structured, but also it was created for "learning by doing" and nontraditional educational projects. In addition, by the university level, much education is collaborative, in seminars where students engage with each other as well as with experts and "professors."
User:Timboliu somehow developed a concept of what Wikiversity was for and how to use Wikiversity for education. He began to use it this way, and found that it was, in effect, allowed, and he enjoyed what seemed to be a great degree of freedom.
Looking at his talk page archive for 2011, he first ran into some fairly normal problems over copyright, discussed by a custodian, Crochet.david. They seem to have been resolved. Other issues may have arisen later. Copyright can be a very complex issue. Beta has no Exemption Dotrine Policy; the English Wikiversity does, so fair use can be allowed there. there have been some suggestions to fix this on Beta; however, Beta has thin supervision, and a decent EDP requires some level of supervision. Still, very small quoted snippets would not normally be considered to violate copyright, even without an EDP.
In 2012, David asked about the stubs Timboliu was creating.[7]. Timboliu gave his opinion, and David did not follow up.
In that same year, there was a questionable contribution in Dutch, Floow2‎, and Sotiale (now a custodian) asked about it.[8] Timboliu said "some contributions contain useful information and are not advertisement." Sotiale was satisfied, but Timboliu also volumnteered that he would consult the nl.wiki community. (Did he? I don't know.) The page was left until recent deletion. The user who created the page was User:Floow2Wiki. If there was a concern about that user or the page, the matter would normally have been raised on the User talk page. The user has no remaining contributions here, but Central Auth shows 13 edits. See commons:User talk:Floow2Wiki. Email was enabled. The pattern is not that of a spammer, but may show a conflict of interest. On en.wikiversity, we encourage such accounts to disclose COI and participate.
User talk:Timboliu/Archief 2013 shows no problems.
So, this year, 2014, the first hint of any issue with Timboliu's contributions appears on 22 June 2014, from Vogone, a recent Lithuanian Beta custodian (April 2014). It mentions conversation on IRC. Above there is a link to an email on Wikimedia-l, which was a response to query about this email, Jun 23, 2014. The response cherry-picks from Timboliu's over 32,000 contributions, and presents examples that do not necessarily violate any Wikiversity policy, but that could seem as violations to non-Wikiversitan Wikipedians.
Romaine has the question "how to act?" That is, a group of Dutch users wants to use Beta for a project, and it's allegedly such a mess that it cannot be used. It is clear what they did. They decided, off-wiki, to support the creation of a Dutch Beta custodian, who could then handle the situation.
Romaine had a handful of contributions to Beta, mostly to his user pages, but appeared June 23 with Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Romaine. The user mentions "problems," which problems are not what we expect custodians to solve except as servants of a community. There is, at this point, no backlog of deletion requests. There is no Dutch community, to speak of, except for Timboliu. Votes immediately appear, and within a few minutes of each other, there are six supports, a red flag waving "canvassing." Timboliu, probably unaware of the off-wiki conversation, adds his support five hours later, and four days later comes Ad Huikeshoven, a board member of Wikimedia Nederland.
Crochet.david waited until 25 July to grant custodian status. Romaine had already set the stage by creating Wikiversity:Forum for Dutch users. As of 15 July 2014, the positions had been laid out. One of the clearest positions, which is contradictory to the Wikiversity mission, is a prohibition of original research. Romaine asks, (Google translation) "This I do not understand. Wikiversity is to offer learning and making. When in making teaching materials something own research?"
This is a very Wikipedian view of education, where education only covers what could be in an encyclopedia. Real education operates in a much larger realm. Imagine a "university" where the only writing allowed is notably verifiable. Call this Encyclopedia University. A professor or other expert or actual researcher at EU may not present the results of their investigations until they have been notably published elsewhere. And even then, they should not do it, because of conflict of interest, but someone else is allowed. Given that most experts are professionals in the field, no course at EU may be taught by experts. Imagine a university where only validated and approved research papers may be submitted as theses. Further, imagine a university where you cannot keep your own research notes and allow them to be seen by others. (I.e., your user space is only usable for material intended for mainspace, as is policy on the wikipedias.)
So, as soon as Romaine was a sysop, he created Wikiversity:Te verwijderen pagina's as a new deletion process, for the Dutch community. He created a newCategory:NL verwijderverzoeken, which would keep the massive deletion process he was setting up out of the view of regular Wikiversity custodians, who might have freaked out at the appearance of over 5000 deletion templates. That category was applied through Template:Weg The template created a notice with a process: After two weeks, the nomination will be judged by a custodian based on the primary principles of Wikiversity, the guidelines and the given arguments. Given that this is all happening in Dutch, Romaine was setting up a process where he would be the only judge, and possibly the only custodian aware that this was happening.
The concept of deletion being decided only by sysops has been asserted and rejected on Beta and elsewhere. What sysops do is to follow community consensus. Here, a custodian has set up a process that might indeed show apparent consensus, but canvassed and biased and designed to set him up to do what he wanted.
Normally, page creators will be notified of formal deletion process. That properly includes talk page notification, which can be particularly important for an irregular user who has email notification set up for the user talk page. This was obviously skipped. Where many pages are, allegedly improperly, created by a single user, on en.wikiversity, there can be a generic Request for Deletion. It is not necessary to list all the pages. In controversial cases, a special category has been created for "pages created by User:X". However, there is even better process, less disruptive, if the user cooperates, which would have been likely here, and that process would preceed a formal RfD. There was no attempt to negotiate a consensus, involving experienced Wikiversitans, beyond Timboliu complaining on en.wikiversity, and he did not mention the sheer scale of the issue. He was given generic advice about deletion, and there was no hint of the real problem. He was also attacked there.
  • 30 July was a question about research outreach. It did not include sufficient information to attract comment, there was no response.
  • August 1 he wrote that "On the Dutch wikiversity a lot of content will be deleted." In spite of over 32,000 contributions to Beta, he is a naive user, and has no idea how to raise an issue effectively. Given that everything was happening in Dutch, I responded to him with generic advice. He was attacked, with the same kind of "you forgot to tell" argumentation as we see above.
  • August 3, he asked a question about resources regarding "Companies and markets," and again got generic advice. Yes, there can be resources on "companies and markets." None of this addresses the real problem, a user who is not disciplined in how he creates resources. That lack of discipline is not uncommon, we see it all the time, and handle it without disruption on en.wv. The difference here was that this user was active for years without problems being seriously addressed.
  • August 14, Timboliu this time reported page deletions on Beta. He did not disclose the scale of the problem. This time I checked. It was, at that point, 1551 deletions, a very large number. On August 18, Erkan Yilmaz, who is also a Beta custodian, notices the process, and points out that a bot can handle mass undeletions. Indeed. However, this is the problem: most of the deletions are likely proper; that is, an improvement in process would not change the outcome. Back to what happened before this:
By 27 July, there awere 7 nominations on the deletion page. A new user appears, Kattenkruid, a Beta registration (no SUL), with sole purpose being the nomination of pages for deletion, no other edits. (However, this is likely nl sysop Kattenkurid.) This was the page as of August 9, before the first archiving. All requests were granted. This, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. It is difficult for a non-custodian to research what happened. There may have been many speedy deletions. Still, the current deletion log for Beta shows the last 5000 deletions having been by Romaine [9], for the period from 8/13 through 8/18.
So it appears that a collection of Dutch users decided off-wiki to attack the work of the only major Dutch contributor to Beta Wikiversity. They then created a custodian to implement the plan, and the Wikiversities, in general, would be vulnerable to a plan like this, because of relatively low normal participation. It has occurred before that process decisions on en.wikiversity were warped by canvassing, but I never saw anything this blatant. Conclusion: the process was abusive.
I wrote above that this was not my conclusion. There was a real problem: lack of discipline in how Wikiversity was used. However, no guidance had been provided. en.wikiversity is still a bit of a mess as a result of years of page creation with no guidance, we are gradually cleaning it up; one will see very little conflict there over this. Treated with respect, users don't complain, they almost always cooperate.
The problem is not original research, the allowance of original research is a feature of Wikiversity. There are issues as to how original research is presented. The overall neutrality policy (WMF wide) effectively requires that original research be identified as such and not presented as if it were a scientific or other consensus.This cuts both ways. Just as a professor in a real university class may present material without providing citations, the general consensus in a field may simply be presented in a Wikiversity resource without having to "prove" it. If there is controversy, Wikiversity will present the controversy in such a manner as to avoid making resources into battlegrounds. The allowance of subpages in mainspace facilitates this. Subpages may be attributed to individuals, and, in some sense, "owned." Just as someone giving a lecture to a class, invited by the professor, may present their opinions, there is no requirement that such lectures be "neutral." The context shows neutrality. These subpages are not presented as "truth," but as attributed opinion or experience.
Stubs without substantial investment in content are routinely deleted on en.wikiversity, unless they are part of a larger structure, where stubs may exist as placeholders to hold real content underneath. Most of the stubs created by Timboliu would deleted on en.wikiversity with little fuss, and the user might be "warned," we'd prefer to call it guidance, and it is presented that way. Timboliu would be guided by more experienced users how to do what he wanted to do without damaging the project.
The massive deletions do not allow ordinary users to review his work and suggest organizational solutions. Most of the pages could have been deleted without fuss, probably. Encouraged to do so, my guess is that Timboliu would have explicitly consented to deletion of many of the pages; others could have been edited to make function clear, and organized under some learning resource. Some might have been appropriately moved to his user space (which is a generic solution often used ad-interim on Wikiversity, and it is common that a redirect will not be created, or will be speedy-deleted, leaving mainspace clean. Custodians routinely cooperate with regular users in this process.
My own concept of Wikversity mainspace is that material that would be appropriate in a university catalog, for some particularly eclectic University, as courses, or special collections of materials, belong in mainspace, that scattered notes and stubs are not appropriate, and actually can cause harm. Much of Timboliu's work was not organized from the point of view of how it affects Wikiversity as a whole. He has started to create resources on en.wikiversity, and did some of the same things there that he did here, and he was guided, and has been responsive to guidance.
We do not build a Wikiversity through deletion. We do build it through encouraging users and the organization of content.
An example of a page that I've seen, Timboliu created a lasagne recipe, I think it was given as an example of his ridiculous contributions. How about a Cooking resource, with a Recipe subpage listing recipes as subpages, and cetegories of foods under that, and eventually coming to a Lasagne recipe. There can be discussion, correction, variations, comment, related resources (nutritional content of foods, relative costs), etc. There would not be a resource in a university catalog on "Lasagne." But there certainly could be resources on cooking and on nutrition. So somebody's "notes" could become a piece of an educational structure. It might take years before the structure is fleshed out, but it will do no harm.
I suggest the following for Timboliu (but see below). He apparently has exports of his material. He may import material to his user space here and invite review and guidance from others. I suggest, however, that he not import any page that does not represent more work than simply creating a stub. He should be careful about certain possible policy violations (copyright issues, for example, still apply in user space). If those stubs are needed in the future, they can be readily created at the point where they would be part of some overall educational structure. Creating lists of possible pages, which then appear as redlinks, can be done. If resources are organized in in his user space as page/subpages, then the entire structure can be moved to mainspace, later, with a single move command, if appropriate. He should be careful about creating many pages with inappropriate names, even n his user space, because this creates more mess to be cleaned up, and possible custodian work. So, first, he should himself filter out what might be considered useless material; the rest he may import. He should test any import to make sure that the pages end up in the right place, which should be as subpages of User:Timboliu. If he imports a few thousand pages, which he could do with a single command, or a few (I think there is a flood restriction) and has made an error in the command, this can create a very irritating mess to clean up!
Ongoing, the process created by Romaine should be defanged. Template:Weg template should become more like en.wv Template:Proposed deletion], with a regular full community deletion process being managed on a deletion page, only if needed. Usually such can be avoided. I see a purpose to having a single-language deletion request page; ultimately, it would be Dutch users who would decide policy for an independent Dutch Wikiversity.
I advise Dutch users to study how en.wikiversity manages content. It avoids nearly all the contentious process that can afflict the Wikipedias. The response above from Romaine attempts to scapegoat Timboliu for what was really a community shortcoming. Timboliu is not on trial here, nor should he be. On-going, as community consensus is developed, a user who fights against consensus can and should be warned and possibly blocked, but this is a last-resort measure, and from Timboliu's behavior so far, completely unnecessary.
Romaine, I strongly advise you stop deleting pages, you are involved, clearly. Setting up a process to find community consensus, that's useful. However, setting it up to warp the conclusions, away from actual Wikiversity practice and policy and intention, and obviously in conflict with an involved user, not good. A mess existed, a mess addressable by fairly simple and ordinary measures. It has been replaced by a new mess, that only sysops can handle, pulling possibly useful pages out of a large pile of deleted ones.
I have expressed my opinion here. Timboliu should wait for some community consent before going ahead with imports to his user space; and if consent is withheld, should continue to seek advice before proceeding with what may be disruptive. --Abd (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but the onliest thing that has happened offwiki was one time the communication between me and Timboliu in what I tried to explain was going wrong, and second two e-mails of mine to the public mailinglist about the problems there were in the Dutch part of Beta Wikiversity. On IRC several people have only stressed their concerns about the "contents" added.
Sentences like "They decided, off-wiki, to support the creation of a Dutch Beta custodian, who could then handle the situation." are nonsense. No decisions about anything have been taken outside the project.
"He created a newCategory:NL verwijderverzoeken, which would keep the massive deletion process he was setting up out of the view of regular Wikiversity custodians, who might have freaked out at the appearance of over 5000 deletion templates." - This I would call framing. You assume/conclude things without having the knowledge of why such action has done. On all Dutch projects it is normal to have two deletion procedures: one for speedy deletions, one for deletion requests that need a longer review period and includes community feedback on the nomination. I have been looking at Beta Wikiversity, but I haven't seen a nomination procedure where feedback from the community is asked. So I was practical: I create one, after having this proposed first to our community! Speedy is used on Dutch projects for pages that can't be used regarding the goal of the wiki, copyvio, nonsense, etc, the feedback procedure is used for pages which contain contents in line with the wiki goals. Depending on the wiki, this is more or less strict organized/specified. If something is nominated for deletion with {weg}, but falls in the category of speedy, it often gets speedily deleted.
"After two weeks, the nomination will be judged by a custodian based on the primary principles of Wikiversity, the guidelines and the given arguments." - I am not sure how this is done otherwise at other language wikis, but this is very common on Dutch projects.
"Given that this is all happening in Dutch, Romaine was setting up a process where he would be the only judge, and possibly the only custodian aware that this was happening." -> At least two other custodians were aware of it. (Again you assume too much.) It would be strange to have a Dutch corner and let people from other languages decide about Dutch pages and guidelines. I have tried to do my work according the created guidelines, if I would do something wrong it is up to the Dutch community here to decide on such matter.
"What sysops do is to follow community consensus." -> That is what I have tried to do.
"Here, a custodian has set up a process that might indeed show apparent consensus, but canvassed and biased and designed to set him up to do what he wanted." -> Here again, making false statements about how I would think. Sorry, please go back to your own community, if they accept such accusations there it is their problem, but this is not a normal way of communication.
It is annoying that people who do not know what really happened, come from outside, make wild accusations, but lack themselves to inform themselves first properly. Romaine (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Romaine, I'm not "coming from outside." I'm an experienced Wikiversity (former) sysop, community creator and maintainer (with many actions on en.wv and a strong habit of anticipating consensus there and working toward it), and with over 400 contributions on Beta, working supporting Beta process. Until the Custodianship request in June, you had 30 contributions here, and you still only have 155 (but over 5000 logged deletions!). You ask, please go back to your own community, when this is more my community than it is yours. This is Babel, not a Dutch page. This is an incubator wiki for Wikiversities, and it is not the property of a particular language community. I avoided getting involved with decisions about Dutch pages, per se, because of the language problem. However, the issue here is a general process problem, and has wider implications, and cuts to the core of the definition of "Wikiversity."
I presented clear evidence of off-wiki coordination in your custodian candidacy, above. No claim is made that all this was "wrong." However, it was definitely outside of wiki norms. Given how you just responded here, were this en.wv, I'd be starting a Community Review for desysop, and it would succeed, I'd predict, unless you radically changed your tune. But this is not en.wv, it's Beta, and you should have much more opportunity to learn how to cooperate and collaborate in building educational content and "learning by doing."
I understand there could be a language problem here. I deliberately presented fact ("evidence") and argument, as a point of view that could be expressed, with implications, stating that this was not my conclusion, necessarily. Those are no more "fact" than much of what you have presented about Timboliu, and that was my point. They are interpretations. however, are you denying, Romaine, that you came here with an intention to "clean up" the Dutch project here, by deleting what you considered inappropriate pages? Are you denying that this was a known plan among nl.wiki users and that your custodian candidacy was announced off-wiki?
I could present that evidence again, but it doesn't matter, unless you make it matter. I am claiming that you are involved, and I could prove it if I needed to. If, however, you recognize that avoiding the appearance of involved decision-making is important, you will simply stop making these deletion decisions yourself. Nobody is demanding that you undelete. Nobody is claiming that the deletions themselves were "wrong." And there is no emergency. Any legitimate deletion process can still proceed, and I'm prepared to support that, I know very well how to get things done on Beta, I have a history of it. I want the Dutch Wikiversity to succeed.
Please stop seeing this as an adversarial process, and instead see this as an opportunity for broad collaboration. I have suggested a way to handle the existing deletions which will generate educational value from them and from what was deleted.[10] If Erkan consents and acts, I will be responsible for that, and this will allow the Dutch community to proceed unimpeded. You get your clean-up and you can proceed to work on the educational content you want. Or would you rather argue and fight and blame? Your choice. --Abd (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)