Jump to content

Wikiversity:Request custodian action/En/archive/20110225

From Wikiversity

This is an archive page. 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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 __
English: This page is about Request custodian action. You can browse this page in different languages above and help multilingual discussion by translating it._
français: Cette page de navigation concerne Requêtes pour les administrateur. Vous pouvez consulter cette page dans les différentes langues indiquées ci-dessus et favoriser la discussion multilingue en la traduisant._
русский: Эта страница посвящена Запросам действий Хранителей. Вы можете ознакомиться с этой страницей на других языках и помочь многоязычному общению, переведя её._
svenska: Denna navigeringsida handlar om Begäran om hjälp från Custodian. Du kan använda denna sida till att komma till olika språkversioner och även hjälpa flerspråksdiskussionen genom att översätta den._
___&preload=template:empty&autoclick=wpSave archiving

New requests[edit]


Please use WV:RFI.

Page undelete[edit]

I'm looking for evidence of a community ban discussion. User:Moulton/Mu was deleted at 18:28, 19 February 2009 VasilievVV deleted "User:Moulton/Mu" ‎ as "personal biography of crosswiki globally blocked troll". The reason given is obviously wrong, so I'm un-deleting the page. --JWSchmidt 18:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



I left a message regarding some of User:Moulton's recent activities at Wikiversity:Babel but realise now that here would have probably been more appropriate since I was looking for a custodian to try to deal with Moulton. Despite a couple of requests that he stop doing since I am not interested in what he has to say, Moulton continues to pester me by leaving somewhat dubious messages, mostly related to the English Wikiversity rather than Beta, for me on my talk page. I would very much appreciate it if a custodian could encourage, by whatever means necessary, Moulton to discontinue this practice. However, it would probably be also appropriate to conduct a broader review of his contributions since 23 July 2010 when he was rather unconventionally allowed to resume editing here after JWSchmidt renamed his account then renamed it back again to get around the global lock of Moulton's account and consider whether that was appropriate. Adambro 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence. Adambro provided only diffs showing that Moulton had been asked not to post to his talk page, in the original filing, and even that was omitted here. In the spirit of assisting this user, I'll provide some evidence to help a reviewing custodian look at this quickly. I'm not going to debate this, but I will comment that, knowing the parties, this dispute can most likely be resolved without a block and without a "broader review," which would almost certainly be disruptive and useless at this time, and what I'd ask is: will a neutral custodian please respond here as intending to look at evidence, to become familiar, and to watch future behavior, so that problems can be more quickly addressed before spinning out into sprawling discussions, as these things can, and as they have elsewhere.
  • 07:32, 20 August 2010 request on User talk:Moulton that Moulton stop reposting messages on Adambro's talk page that Adambro has deleted.
  • 18:25, 20 August 2010 repeated request
  • 20:00, 20 August 2010 posting to Babel by Adambro complaining. 6 of Moulton's posts to User talk:Adambro, as shown below, were after the filing.
  • 12:34, 22 August 2010 User talk:Adambro history (time is time of last Moulton edit) shows revert warring between Moulton and Adambro, starting on July 25. I have not reviewed each action, but on the face it appears that Adambro removed a Moulton comment 12 times, Moulton replaced it with the same or other comment 11 times. With the first removal, Adambro summarized: rv nonsense, which was unfortunate. 9 of Moulton's edits to Adambro Talk were after the first request to stop.
  • I'm not going to comment on the content of the edits. It's irrelevant, except to say that this is about conflict on another wiki, and I do not recommend allowing it to be brought here. Informal conversation, voluntary participation, fine. But this wasn't that.
  • http://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moulton&diff=65204&oldid=65136 15:49, 22 August 2010 my warning to Moulton
  • As can be seen, Moulton has not edited Adambro Talk after being warned by me, and I suspect that Moulton will respect my request. Given this, I suggest that a neutral custodian confirm the warning that the prior behavior is not acceptable, and then leave it at that. I will discuss how Adambro might have helped defuse this situation, in another space, and I'm concerned that at least one beta sysop was aware of what was happening and did not intervene to stop it. Again, that's for another time and place. This request for action should be promptly closed, it can become a magnet for further useless controversy over who said what when, what did it mean, and besides, terrible things have happened in the past. --Abd 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not going to comment on the content of the edits. It's irrelevant, except to say that this is about conflict on another wiki, and I do not recommend allowing it to be brought here." <== Abd, I think we need to examine your POV. I know why Moulton came to this wiki: to help develop Wikiversity research policy. I don't know why Adambro came here, but he tried to get Moulton's user page deleted. Adambro claimed that Moulton had been "globally banned", but Adambro did not explain what "globally banned" means. Adambro is free to dismiss talk page discussion as "nonsense", even if some might view such a dismissal as rude. Adambro stalks Moulton across multiple Wikimedia projects in an attempt to enforce a bogus lock that was imposed on Moulton's user account. Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, with the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bad lock since "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Since the account lock was obviously an error, I uncoupled Moulton's local account. Since Moulton was blocked from the English language Wikiversity in violation of policy it is important that there be a place where the Wikiversity community can document, comment on, and learn from what happened to Moulton and how learning projects have been disrupted at the English language Wikiversity. I believe that the research policy needs to be modified and strengthened so as to protect Wikiversity research projects and Wikiversity research project participants from disruption. I think it would benefit Wikiversity if Adambro would spend some time discussing how to protect Wikiversity from disruption, but if he wants to avoid discussion he is free to ignore Moulton. --JWSchmidt 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I would welcome a "broader review" as Adam has thoughtfully suggested. Could someone kindly instruct Adam on the protocols for initiating such a review? —Moulton 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, if I can get it right, he is kind of "trolling"? --ZaDiak 16:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moulton's user account was subjected to a global account lock, with the "reason" given as "enough is enough". This is a bogus lock, "enough is enough" is not a valid reason for a lock. Since the lock was obviously an error, I uncoupled Moulton's local account from the bogus lock. Since Moulton was blocked from the English language Wikiversity in violation of policy it is important that there be a safe haven where the Wikiversity community can document, comment on, and learn from what happened to Moulton.
Adambro continues to try to enforce the bogus account lock, which might amount to trolling if people respond to his calls for action against Moulton.
Exactly what kind of "deal" is being requested?
--JWSchmidt 17:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy here what I posted on Babel:

  • Support independent warning of Moulton against harassment, with block following if warning is disregarded. Moulton, this is beyond the pale, for two reasons. First of all, don't harass a user. Period. Repeated use of a Talk page to make a point, to insist on response, is abusive, and, if continued, must be stopped. Further, beta is technically a separate wiki. Moulton, please do not use Beta to pursue a grievance about what's happening on en.wikiversity. The place for that is there, and you have means of pursuing that there. --Abd (wikiversity user) 15:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can easily get sidetracked into endless debates over sprawling issues. Let's keep it simple. Adambro has a simple request, involving what appears to be harassment by Moulton. He has a right to make that request, and that should be honored. Underneath this is a huge tangle of unresolved controversies which an individual custodian here is not going to untangle, or, at least, that is very unlikely! So one step at a time. Moulton has been doing something here which seems inappropriate. There is no need to block him for this unless he disregards a warning. I've warned him, but any local custodian could confirm that warning. If he violates a confirmed warning, then he should be blocked, but short-blocked. Standard process. To take this to a community review first, for example, will be extraordinarily disruptive. I suggest not. Keep it simple.
  • Now, Adambro raises an issue about the global lock. Any 'crat can delink an account from the SUL, and it is reasonable that a 'crat might do this on request. This is not the same as an unblock, though it can have that effect. From later events, it is clear that the consensus, so far, is that the global lock isn't actually a global ban, but it does require that a local 'crat act to unlock a local account, making a local decision possible. The intention was to give local wikis the right to unblock if they want. With a later case, a global lock was in place, and it was lifted precisely to give local wikis the right to handle a block, and stewards scurried around to place local blocks -- i.e., as a default -- instead. Long story, but the intention was clear: give local wikis the right to decide. Some kind of private deal may have been reached later (it is quite unclear, violating Steward Policy at meta) to strengthen this with a reassertion of the global lock, thus requiring a 'crat to change the status quo of "blocked." Frankly, I agree with that as a compromise. But it's also my opinion that any local 'crat may do this upon request. It does have the effect of unblocking a user if the user is not blocked! If the user should be blocked locally, that is a local decision. The 'crat is simply making it possible for a local decision to be made. So ... make your local decision! I do warn, however, that if a user considered disruptive at meta is allowed to edit locally, and uses that freedom to criticize users at other wikis, or based on behavior at other wikis, it could bring intervention, and the local right of decision might be suspended. So do consider the interests of other wikis. Which may require exercising some restraint over the behavior of local editors. --Abd 17:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"what appears to be harassment" <== Abd, please link to an edit that "appears to be harassment".
"he should be blocked" <== Abd, please don't try to bring a disruptive culture of blocking to this wiki.
"global ban" <== Abd, please explain what you mean by "global ban".
"it could bring intervention" <-- Abd, please explain what you mean by "intervention". --JWSchmidt 19:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't bring a culture of endless and useless argument to beta.wikiversity. I'm not answering your questions because I am not a sysop here, and I have no obligation to answer. If what I've written is totally preposterous, so what? What are you going to do? Block me? Somehow I don't think so. This is a page for requesting that a custodian look at something. I didn't file the request, Adambro did. And Adambro deserves to have a custodian look at it. I'll ask my own question? JWS, why are you trying to prevent a custodian from taking an unbiased look at the situation? Is that an appropriate role for a bureaucrat, to harangue someone who makes a comment with their opinion and view? In this case, both Adambro and Moulton have welcomed me here. You have not. Why not? As to "disruptive culture of block," a block is an unlikely outcome here, unless the local community does not handle local incivility and, yes, harassment. Had Wikiversity handled it when it appeared there, the whole history of that wiki would have been different and you might still be a sysop there. Moulton will only be blocked if he wants to be blocked, you know that. So, please stop with the knee-jerk questioning of every word you don't like. --Abd 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the block suggested would only be a short block, and only if warnings, based on necessity to maintain a safe and collegial community, are disregarded and incivility or harassment continues. The problem elsewhere is not such blocks, it is bans, which are quite another matter. Short blocks are like some member of, say, an academic body, being asked to leave the room because they won't stop shouting and disrupting a meeting. That's perfectly normal, and would almost never result in a ban from the body! --Abd 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, I am trying to determine if that is true. It is a normal part of human communication to respond to questions and support your claims with evidence.
Abd, please link to what you view as a "harangue".
If I see a red link on a user talk page I often leave a welcome. In your case, I saw a blue link and did not think to leave you a welcome until after you asked.
Abd, please explain what you mean by "knee-jerk questioning". It sounds like what I subject medical physiology students to when they study reflexes. The only application of "knee-jerk reflexes" I've seen in the wiki world is from a few sysops who revert edits without reading them while falsely calling them vandalism.
Abd, please link to specific examples of incivility and harassment so that we can discuss them.
--JWSchmidt 21:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above is an example of what I've written about. One question I'll answer about "intervention." This would be a steward coming from meta to block a user or delete pages. And to desysop anyone who wheel-wars with him or her. In 2008 and in March 2010, it was Jimbo himself who did the deed. That will not repeat. But stewards can and will use their tools to block local users, if they see the situation as sufficiently serious to warrant it. The principle of local autonomy is strong, but not absolute. --Abd 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abd, who are you worried will come galumphing in here with guns ablazing? And who are you worried will be subjected to the quaint and archaic treatment that you fear? —Moulton 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First thing first. 1. Beta is for Wikiversity policy development and new Wikiversity incubation so please, both of you, don't use this site for your personal arguments.
    • 2.To Adam: Moulton has not been blocked by the Beta community and so you shouldn't have been surprised in the first place that his account was unlocked.
    • 3. To Moulton: It is a custom in all wikis that users treat their talk pages as their personal space so please respect the wish of others. I don't see what you can achieve by continually posting unwanted comments.
    • 4. This little argument has certainly been blown out of proportion. I have received as many unwanted messages when I voted against Bastique at his first steward election and also when Mike Lifeguard tried to make me format my talk/user pages according to his specifications. <Hillgentleman| ~ | > 03:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see wanting to be left alone if one is not bothering anyone else. But here we have Adam Brookes acting in his official capacity as an empowered Custodian to govern the English Wikiversity and the community of scholars who are otherwise constructively engaged there. If Adam wishes to govern others, then he must expect to receive feedback from those over whom he intends to exercise unilateral governing powers. It is ludicrous for him (or anyone else) to imagine they can exercise political control over others and escape receiving feedback over it. —Moulton 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]