Wikiversity talk:Request custodian action/En

Today I have established some structure to the Requests page. It is possible that an unfulfilled rename request was not seen because it was buried among fulfilled requests. I will watch this page. I created categories for new requests, being all the common ones but maybe I missed something. --Abd (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

As a part of repeatedly removing a request for custodian action that I'd filed regarding his behavior, a user removed part of the structure I created.[1] As this structure was apparently accepted by two custodians who had edited the page after my clerking and organization of it, I'm considering that it has at least preliminary consensus, and I'll defend it against reversion without discussion. This user did not consider the needs addressed by the changes, and his objection is purely, boiled down, that I did it.

A user who is the subject of a request for warning or block cannot be allowed to unilaterally remove the request, nor to close or archive it, absent consensus. If a user can do that, there is no process; closes and archiving should be done neutrally, it's clear and necessary. So, again, I'll defend this position as fundamental to wiki process. --Abd (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

"A user who is the subject of a request for warning or block cannot be allowed to unilaterally remove the request, nor to close or archive it, absent consensus" - Not policy, no consensus prohibits that. I don't see why leaving the current request up is necessary when the admin had already protected the template.

"As this structure was apparently accepted by two custodians who had edited the page after my clerking and organization of it, I'm considering that it has at least preliminary consensus..." I'm pretty sure that by that logic other administrators who had clerked other requests on this page and had edited it once or twice saw your request for block and did not consider action necessary, thus consensus is against it. Otherwise, "consensus" is simply just what you prefer. Because there has been no further need for action since the protection, the request for block is simply a petty "revenge" over your personal dispute, that you seek to carry further by leaving it on this page, and is not at all in the interests of protecting the wiki.

"closes[sic] and archiving should be done neutrally" I'm not sure you're exactly the most neutral person to be archiving, let alone revert warring over the request page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I raised many issues, and protection only partially addressed one of them. That a page required protection because of revert warring is not a resolution of the underlying problem. that the template is now defective in certain ways, is not a resolution. That you revert warred on two pages and are showing a readiness to continue that behavior, is not a resolution. It's not resolved. Period.

• Your removal of the request showed me that it would be premature to close. You didn't copy it to the archive, you just deleted it. The page procedure at that point was clear, there is a closed section that allows pages to remain visible in case anyone wants to re-open them, for a time. That's the equivalent of closed templates on other request pages elsewhere.

• Archiving is a process that can be done by anyone "if it is neutrally done.* You are showing that you are objecting to me personally. Doing archiving neutrally is easy. One simply follows established procedures, usually, or if those procedures are not established, one makes the archive easily accessible, and doesn't archive requests unless there is a consensus that they are ready for that. Here, there is an established procedure, in use for a long time, that you did not follow. --Abd (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus for your proposed immense changes to Wikiversity changes before introducing them. If another editor disagrees, you are free to discuss it on the talkpage or have an outside third party comment, but not reinstate the change. That is, in your words, the "wiki way". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• The changes were done here, and described on this talk page, on February 27, a month ago. Two custodians have responded to requests on this page and presumably saw those changes.
• The changes were designed to address a clear problem, the page organization was allowing some requests to fail to be noticed, it was obvious.
• So I fixed it, and the page apparently became easier to use.
• A month later, you object, claiming "lack of consensus." Lack of consensus is a reason not to change an established policy. No policy was changed here. Existing practice was clarified, some, and the details of that could be changed, easily.
• You did not raise any problems with the changes I made, you only demanded "consensus" before making changes, on a matter where consensus is not actually required to make a change, i.e., improvements or alleged improvements in appearance of a page.
• Instead you only objected to the change, it's obvious, because I made it.
• Hence there is no force to your objection. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The existence of multiple headers on what is ostensibly a low-traffic ad-hoc request page makes it less readable. Perhaps you're not aware of this, but most of the custodians on this site do not always speak English fluently and multiple headers make it more difficult to distinguish an actual request (third-level header) for custodian action than the complex categorization scheme (first-level headers) you introduced. It also makes the Table of Contents extremely cluttered. In addition to that, you're trying to make it personal, by ironically claiming that I am doing so, but even so there's no actual reason for the change.

Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, of existing practice and consensus. Whether I am changing practice or policy is irrelevant; claims that I'm trying to change 'policy' versus 'practice' are simply more strawman arguments. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The text had stood on this page under scrutiny by multiple administrators for long enough and the extreme length of the post, as is carelessly wanton in any of Abd's posts, inconveniences the site for mobile users and non-English-speaking administrators who should use their time on something more productive than mediating or encouraging a small dispute between two users. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert warring on Request page

Non-English speaking administrators should exercise caution in using this page, which is explicitly for requests in English. They may always ask for clarification, including a request to summarize. The issue here is a report of user behavior, with the user wanting to remove the report, based on inaction. Such a removal should not be done by the subject of a report. Period. The comment above is not related to the structural changes I made, the topic raised here, but only to the report about his behavior, his real problem. --Abd (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Point me to the specific policy page on this Wikiversity that prohibits me from removing the report, and I will comply. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've asked numerous times for a Wikiversity policy page prohibiting removal of the report and there had been no demonstration of such. There's been no productivity gained from this activity, other than of course your habit to argue tendentiously on pages like Template talk:Delete without providing any proper evidence or documentation when repeatedly asked. --TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Above, TeleCom argues that in the absence of specific policy prohibiting it, he may remove a report about his behavior from the Request page. "Wikilawyering" is arguing policy contrary to the substance or intention of policy, or contrary to the welfare of the wiki. If a user is allowed to revert war to remove a request about his or her behavior, there is no restraint, the user may revert war over anything and everything. Revert warring is also not contrary to policy here, as far as anything formal that I've seen. If TeleCom's argument is correct, then he may indeed do what he is doing, but I may do the same as well, I may restore the report indefinitely. And that will eventually lead to custodian attention. It works for me, if that's what he needs.

In the report, prior revert warring contrary to general wiki traditions and practice, was shown, which only stopped when a custodian intervened, always in favor of the position I was asserting. I cannot predict what will happen here, but the basic principle I am defending is clear.

If someone reports a user for problem behavior, that user may not unilaterally remove the report. Unless, of course, he owns the wiki. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)