Wikiversity:Request custodian action/En

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiversity:Request custodian action

This revision:-
Custodians' tool

See also: Wikiversity:requests for import, Wikiversity:notices for custodians

Wikiversity Custodians (also known as administrators or sysops), are Wikiversity users who have access to technical features that help with maintenance of Wikiversity. Those features include protecting and deleting pages, blocking editors (spamming IPs, ...) and undoing these actions as well.

In emergency, custodians or stewards may be contacted via IRC (see Wikiversity:Chat).

Archive and archiving


Please use WV:RFI.

New requests[edit]

Articles duplicated on English Wikiversity[edit]

Most of these articles duplicate ones on English Wikiversity (plus one that is redundant to a Wikipedia biography). They were all created by User:Jon Awbrey~betawikiversity, who has not been active for a couple of years.

--Green Giant (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am still active on several Wikimedia sites. It's just that some bot recently gave me different names on different sister sites. The Charles Sanders Peirce biography here is useful in that it contains additional information and exposition that might be considered OR on the main Wikipedia site. Regards, JonAwbrey (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I didn’t realise that had happened to your account. Fair point about the biography but do we need the others, when they are effectively duplicated on the English Wikiversity? Green Giant (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. Depends on whether the usage communities overlap all that much and whether it is useful to have copies of the information near at hand. I leave it to the locals to decide. JonAwbrey (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old requests[edit]

Move fulfilled or rejected requests here in order of date closed, may be archived after a month for review from last comment and move.

Categories for deletion[edit]

These are in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion but the first two were ignored for nine months because, first, the tagger used an incorrect template, and then, when that was corrected, and when a custodian has recently cleaned up the category, this page is displayed as if it is a subcategory. It is not. It's a confirmed deletion request.

The third page was misnamed. These are, for us, exported pages not imported ones. I have created Category:Exported pages for speedy deletion for future usage. We may need a distinct template and category to use for categories for deletion, because using the delete template puts the page into Candidates for speedy deletion, and the category display assumes it is subcategory, not a request. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TeleComNasSprVen (Talk | Email | Contribs | SulUtil)[edit]

The original request has been archived to history to focus on the current issue.

The user is repeatedly attempting to delete this request for custodian action or review, see below.

  • The user has never acknowledged that there was any problem with revert warring to the extent that a custodian had to protect a commonly used template against this user's change, nor that there was any problem with revert warring to keep a speedy deletion template on a page when there was disagreement about deletion.
  • From history, I know this user. Unless very clearly warned by a custodian, he'll continue to do the same kind of things. He may stop for a while, he might even stop for a year or two, but he comes back with the same behavior.
I do not think a block would help the project in any way. Temporary limited blocks will not change a user's behaviour after it expired and for banning TeleComNasSprVen entirely from this project there is no sufficient evidence of abuse, in my opinion. Furthermore, there always belong two users to an edit war like it happened for example on this page but also on some other ones. So the solution would be either to block you both or to block none of you, and I hope the latter solution will be sufficient since the edit war seems to have stopped and I hereby ask you both not to repeat this kind of behaviour again. It doesn't help the project and might disturb the other test contributors around here, but most probably they don't even care about this personal conflict and have better things to do/care about. Thank you both very much for understanding. Vogone (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done. Thanks, Vogone, for attending to this, you stopped his revert warring. There were three sets of revert wars, all now resolved with the result I was asserting as how the community would decide:
  • A speedy deletion tag was removed, matching what I'd done, knowing that an administrator had previously reviewed the page.
  • The speedy deletion template was returned to standard policy, from an attempt to require only administrators remove the templates. It is now even clearer than before.
  • And a user was not allowed to remove a report about his behavior from this page, and a satisfied request that was deleted was restored to be archived later.
I do suspect that TeleCom's purpose here was to demonstrate that Beta is broken. But it isn't. It's just slow. --Abd (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no policies nor guidelines provided to support your allegations of what a volunteer "must" or "must not" do. And why do you continue to pursue this point long after it has been closed? Truly, the addition of your comments here are themselves disruptive.TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not alleged that a volunteer must do anything. Nor, in fact, that they "must not" do anything. I don't even believe in "must" and "must not." There is "can" and maybe "can not," but usually what is true is that if one does X, Y follows.
Above, I described what happened. There is no "must" or "must not" in that.
For example, there is no "must not" about TeleCom continuing to object here, and he could even keep removing this filing. But there could be consequences.
And the most obvious consequence, from his continuing to complain, is that this stays here on this page, until a month after the last comment. I had thanked Vogone, and was done, nothing more to say. But, now, one thing more to say:
"Long after it has been closed?" The administrator did not close off comments, he made a decision not to act, April 28, and until an administrator had responded, it was not closed. Today is April 29, it's the next day.
Suit yourself, TeleCom, I'm not your boss. But neither are you mine. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe there is any need to discuss this any further unless someone disagrees with my decision itself. Vogone (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You allege that "[A] user was not allowed to remove a report about his behavior from this page". That is the equivalent of "must not", in Wikimedia terms. And surely, you always have something more to say? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case you didn't understand me. This discussion doesn't belong to this page and in case you continue fighting over here I might change my opinion regarding a block of both of your accounts. It is just disruptive to carry out a conflict here nobody watching this page is interested in except for you two. This is what user talk pages, WikiMail etc. are for. Thank you. Vogone (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]