Wikiversity

Wikiversity:Request custodian action/archive/2014

< Wikiversity:Request custodian action‎ | archive
 This page is an Archive
This information is kept for referential reasons only and should not be edited.

Delete message edit

MediaWiki:Recentchangestext - wrong use. Cause doubled text in Special:recentchanges. The message which ifts there is MediaWiki:Recentchanges-summary.--Juandev (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this done? I don't see at least double text at Special:RecentChanges now, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block IP edit

Please block the IP 107.191.118.224. Laberinto16 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consider this "done"? The IP didn't do any more harm in 1 month after that. Thx also for restoring to the "good versions", ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It had a 3-day blocking Crochet.david (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block abusive editor Abd edit

Please take action against user:Abd.

I am not happy with this personal attack. Especially, because he earlier said that it is irrelevant here what you do on other Wikipedias...

And now he attacks another user: attack on Romaine. Having different opinions is okay, be he is now becoming annoying and disruptive. The Banner talk 21:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss edit

  • Response. One step at a time. This is the first that I've heard that The Banner is unhappy with that post. I am reviewing that and expect to strike it. I will also look at the other post, allegedly an attack on Romaine. However, my participation on Beta, as on en.wikiversity, has always been toward encouraging maximum participation and collaboration, and that includes the user who was heavily attacked off-wiki and here, Timboliu, whose work was just massively deleted, apparently over 5000 pages, through a rushed process that ignored possible usable content, and that ignored collaborative solutions, even where there was a rough consensus for them.
  • When I investigated, at the request of custodian Erkan Yilmaz, who was concerned about the treatment of User:Timboliu and described what I found, I was attacked. Every possible minor error in what I wrote was extensively and repetitively criticized, to the point that there is now a massive commentary by Romaine on Babel.[1] This should stop. Nothing is preventing users from working on the Dutch Wikipedia except their own obsessions.
  • As Timboliu is now apparently satisfied and working with the Dutch community, most of my immediate work is done. I do intend to study the incident at leisure, but nothing is urgent.
  • Comment re The Banner struck.[2] --Abd (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment allegedly an attack on Romaine is not an attack. Read it! Romaine has been doing what on other wikis would result in the loss of his sysop bit. I requested that The Banner "help him out," i.e., tap Romaine on the shoulder, and point out that what he's doing could harm him. The Banner's is explicit that this request [is] his his response response. Erkan Yilmaz asked both of us (Romaine and myself) to disengage. I've been attempting to do that, but Romaine keeps attacking, to the point that he revert warred with me on my user talk page, reverted me on my talk page archive and protected the page (fixed by custodian Vogone), and he has also reverted my brief response to him on Babel, see the response at [3]. I have one edit to a page that had been part of the Dutch Wikiversity, the edit was completely proper, a move to user space, with a removal of the Dutch Wikiversity category, and improperly undone by Romaine so that he could delete the page as he wanted. This is crazy. It would be helpful if another custodian would point out that all this is disruptive, and completely unnecessary for the purposes of the Dutch Wikiversity. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I just did below. Vogone (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Vogone. I occasionally see this, I don't know what happened. I should have seen an edit conflict. But I didn't, and my edit was accepted, even though it was after yours. --Abd (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Romaine, the Dutch Wikiversity (which is a collection of pages in a special category) is welcome to hold a ban discussion, though don't you think it a bit silly to hold a ban discussion from someone with one nondisruptive edit -- now deleted -- to the Dutch Wikiversity? Nevertheless, I'd respect the result as regards the Dutch Wikiversity. Otherwise, the relevant community here is the Beta community. And you already have response from two sysops here that want you to stop this disruption. How about it? What is so hard about just stopping? If you keep this up, this could get very ugly. Don't go there! --Abd (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, could you please stop provoking? Thanks. The Banner talk 23:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And with provoking I did not only mean this pages, but all pages. You know that you are unwanted on Romaines pages, so why are you going to his page again? And why so offensive? Are there no other custodians around? The Banner talk 23:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't stated what provocation. Perhaps you mean this. Romaine has never requested I not post to his talk page. If he had, I'd not post there, I'd post here (i.e., "other custodians"). As it is, I owe him the opportunity to undo his action. Standard practice.
As to "provocation," which is more provocative, requesting the undeletion of a page, deleted by a custodian from my user space, on his Talk page, or demanding the block of a user, declaring that the user is "unwelcome" on Babel, reverting his brief contributions there, and filling Babel and this request, as well, with tendentious argument? I've suggested to you and to other Dutch users that they advise their well-known friend be cautious. He might need some more reminding. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know quite well where I was taking about. You and Romaine are clearly not friends. So stay away from him. The Banner talk 01:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am. However, he's been coming after me, in numerous ways, completely outside of the needs of the Dutch Wikiversity. If he does nothing more, I think we are done here. If he continues provocation, maybe not. Since it seems he's not going to undelete the page he improperly deleted, and rather than bother other custodians here, I've placed that content on en.wikiversity. Now, how about working on the Dutch Wikiversity, instead of continuing to stir the pot? --Abd (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After you, Sir. I am working on a course, you keep stirring the pot yourself... The Banner talk 13:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this requires custodian action. Apparently Abd is here to make the Dutch language community aware of a grievance, and ellaborates ways to resolve them. This might appear "annoying" to some, but is no reason to ban someone from participating to this wiki. I would rather encourage you to calm down a bit and stop to react to actions you don't like on Abd's side with trolling. An example is the revert which recently happened, visible for anyone interested in Wikiversity:Babel's history, or a custodian reacting to an edit war he himself provoked with a page protection. I agree the situation is not optimal, but requesting blocks is in no way helping to deescalate it. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Abd:
    • So you actually say that you have the right to attack other people because you think you are right. Sorry, no way.
    • "as on en.wikiversity, has always been toward encouraging maximum participation and collaboration" -> And why do you not collaborate then on Beta Wikiversity? (No you don't, you bypass the community, etc.) You are attacking me and you are attacking the community. Also you are attacking The Banner.
    • "that ignored possible usable content" -> That the English Wikiversity accepts crap, is no reason to export that to other wikis. The Dutch community has discussed all options and came to the agreement that the pages must be deleted as no other serious option was sufficient to solve the problems.
    • "This should stop." -> It is very simple, you are misbehaving yourself, and that requires my special attention. When you stop, everything is solved.
    • "most of my immediate work is done" -> You haven't done any work but you are solely disturbing this wiki. Go do something useful, elsewhere. Romaine (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vogone:
    • "Apparently Abd is here to make the Dutch language community aware of a grievance" -> No he is not. We already knew about the disappointment of Timboliu before Abd came here. Abd is here solely to disturb the wiki.
    • "This might appear "annoying" to some" -> Apparently you did not read the attacks, false accusations and harassments written by Abd. "Annoying" is an understatement and show a lack of understanding.
    • "no reason to ban someone from participating to this wiki" -> Define "participating". He isn't! Participation includes a open dialogue with the Dutch community, which he refuses.
    • "I would rather encourage you to calm down a bit and stop to react to actions you don't like on Abd's side with trolling." -> He acts like a troll, is blocked because of trolling, and we name the things as they are. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, we call it a duck.
    • "An example is the revert which recently happened" -> Sorry, it is time for a troll free wiki, including Babel. If Abd thinks he can censorship other users messages, his messages will be censored as well.
    • "or a custodian reacting to an edit war he himself provoked with a page protection" -> Call it by name, I did that. If someone is not capable of acting normal, custodians are there to help that person with that. And no, that was not provoking, it was an attempt to end is trolling on this wiki.
    • "I agree the situation is not optimal, but requesting blocks is in no way helping to deescalate it." -> Which is not true. The onliest problem on this wiki is Abd. If he gets blocked, the complete issue is solved. That the other custodians on this wiki do not take any acting against is attacks, false accusations and harassments, that is not helping to deescalate. As long that behaviour is perceived, this wiki remains having a problem. Romaine (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated accusations edit

While I agree that both 162688 and 162774 edits by Abd do indeed contain unsubstantiated accusations (“shame on you, Abd!”, BTW), my opinion is that these only warrant requests to provide evidence, for each point, – not a “punishment” that this block is (as it seems to me) seeks to serve.

Moreover, I consider the Abd is here solely to disturb the wiki claim by Romaine above to be an unsubstantiated accusation by itself. And it’s easily countered by considering the content of one of the aforementioned edits, in particular: What I requested is that the massively deleted content be restored and immediately moved to my user space for study. – a perfectly valid explanation for the user’s action (specifically, – a request to the custodians.)

If there is any solid evidence that Abd indeed does not have any constructive collaboration as one of his goals here, – I hereby request Romaine (or any other interested party) to produce it. But frankly, I consider it highly unlikely that such a sheer statement could possibly be proven (as in: beyond reasonable doubt.)

And doesn’t If Abd thinks he can censorship other users messages, his messages will be censored as well. fall under the very definition of “edit war”, BTW?

My overall opinion (based on a brief scan over the evidence) of this whole confrontation is that a classic escalation has taken place: Alice accused Bob of X, to which Bob responded by accusing Alice in turn of much more serious Y. After a several rounds, we have this “please block him due to him disruptive editing‼” proposal, – with no obvious purpose other than to remove a dissenter from any further discussion, – whether related to the case at hand – or not.

While the proper solution for this problem is just to calm down, as was already suggested.

TIA.

Ivan Shmakov (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I responded to personal attacks from Abd. The Banner talk 20:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note about Ivan Shmakov: he came by in an IRC channel, refused to read the problems clearly described in Babel, and began saying "unsubstantiated accusations", but refuses to look at the evidence nor has read it.
Clearly is not involved in this project, does not understand that false harassments, wrong assumptions and personal attacks do not belong on this wiki, and starts with similar blockable behaviour as Abd. Ivan Shmakov said on IRC that he only reacts when he thinks it is "helpful", but he doesn't understand that protecting someone who is trolling on this wiki, is not helpful. Romaine (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aren’t we generally assume that anyone that happens on IRC remains on IRC? If not, — I’ll readily provide the full log of that conversation, for the community to decide for themselves whether the accusations by Romaine above are in fact substantiated or not. Ivan Shmakov (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general it is forbidden to publish chatlogs. But that doesn't mean that users are expected to keep everything a secret what happens there. Also there is no need for extra accusations, the ones I have said on IRC I have said multiple times already on multiple pages on this wiki. You would have known that if you would have read the links I provided you. You did draw conclusions within minutes after my complaints, you have clearly not read the complaints I added in the past days on this wiki. The Dutch community has seen what happened and have made publicly clear that the accusations/complaints I have made in the past days are correct and action upon them is requested. Romaine (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As Abd has already noted above, blocking a user here requires the consensus of the Beta community at large, – not just its Dutch Wikiversity part. (That is: we’re discussing a possible block for a user of Beta Wikiversity, – not Dutch Wikiversity, – yet.)
  2. Moreover, I see no link to the Dutch community decision in this discussion, either. Personally, I’d expect all the links in support (or opposition) of a decision requiring community consensus to feature in that same discussion. Hence, while I acknowledge the fact that I did not thoroughly read the related discussions at Wikiversity:Babel and the individual talk pages of the parties involved, I assume that the excerpts and links relevant to this particular block discussion (and not just to whatever activity the parties involved ever had here on Beta) be posted in this same discussion.
  3. To put it short, – while an interested party certainly may expect the community to dig up and read through all the relevant matter, – I find it somewhat unlikely to happen in practice given the sheer volume of such matter in this particular case.
  4. That being said, I’m inclined to support a possible “topic ban” for some or all the parties involved. My personal suggestion would be to disallow – for the duration of 3 days – any further participation in any discussions (that is: any edits to talk, forum, and “request” pages) here on Beta for both Abd and Romaine.
Ivan Shmakov (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan Shmakov: It seems like Abd would agree to stay out of this for a week already (see User talk:Abd#Your plans). Though, he listed a few conditions there which I am inclined to accept, as I agree that users should have full control over their own userspace and both his userspace and also Wikiversity:Babel are not places where "the Dutch community" has ultimate control over. Besides, I have also never seen a decision onwiki which would justify these actions by Romaine. Any suggestions from your side what to do? I just fear that further actions against Romaine's will are going to escalate the situation even further. Regards, Vogone (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this thread was started to discuss a fitting reply to the personal attacks from mr. Abd. Why is this discussion hijacked en redirected to attack on Romaine? This is way out of the focus of the original request. Let somebody make a separate request against Romaine and focus this discussion again on the original request. The Banner talk 00:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on a solution to calm this down, and this involves all parties. An interaction ban or however one would like to call it always requires multiple parties, so it is impossible to limit this discussion to Abd only. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are really merely trying to calm this situation down, you should really stop attacking the Dutch community or individual Dutch contributors. You should also stick to the original request made by the Banner. It is irrelevant that the request is part of something bigger and the Dutch community would be very happy if Abd were to be toppic banned from the Dutch wikiversity, but this was and is still only a request for custodian action in response to a personal attack. If you believe no action is necessary for that, just say so. If you think recent events on the Dutch wikiversity requires custodians attention, file a new request. And please, stop assuming bad faith. You're not calming a situation down here, you are making it worse! EvilFreD (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Errrm, this is what I said. I said I don't believe a block of Abd's would be appropriate and that Abd himself would consider to stay out of DutchWV-related issues (which you could call a topic ban). I find it unfair that you accuse me of having attacked someone, where is the evidence? I neither attacked the community nor Romaine, just said that acting against Romaine's will would probably escalate the situation further rather than easing it. Vogone (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have put a focus on Romaine, claiming that is not possible to judge the personal attacks by Abd without looking at the action of Romaine. I call that attacking Romaine, as he was not involved in placing the personal attacks but was, just as me, victim of the attacks. The Banner talk 13:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This comment, like the pseudo-close of Romaine, below, continues to argue the substance of this request, i.e., that I was making "personal attacks," while claiming that no personal attacks were made by the filer or the involved custodian. Many claims have been made here, and elsewhere, of "personal attacks." That is well-known and understood to be, itself, "personal attack," unless handled neutrally and civilly. Thus to properly examine this would require a careful review of the edits, which requires evidence be submitted, etc., a possibly time-consuming and disruptive task.
Two custodians have asked that this debate stop. I support that request, and stopped, except for specific and narrow response, as here, today. However, the other side of this debate has continued to argue, blame, reject, and, indeed, to still claim I should be blocked, as can be seen below in the Conclusion.
I'm requesting a formal close by a neutral custodian, considering the welfare of Beta Wikiversity. There is rough consensus here against block. There is only the agreement of a narrow and highly involved slice of the Dutch Wikversity community (three users), all very new here, (and not expressed by any formal Dutch process, AFAIK) that I have done anything contrary to policy or even harmful to the wiki. Two of them are obviously willing to drop this request.
I see a suggestion here of a possible topic ban. A neutral custodian, based on continued disruption, may at any time issue a topic ban. To be useful, it should be specific and clear, as to what is allowed and not allowed, and non-disruptive appeal should be allowed. (If the ban is short, a week or less, that's not really necessary). Where disruptive behavior is limited to one user, the ban may cover only that user. Otherwise, it is common to issue "interaction bans," which will cover more than one user. I do not think a topic ban necessary at this time, but if disruption continues after this, it may become appropriate.
There has been brief discussion of a possible ban on my user talk page, with Vogone. In order to calm the waters, I voluntarily agreed to a one-week topic ban, not as an imposed requirement (because he did not impose a ban, he raised the possibility), and giving exceptions, which he accepted. That there is continued activity in dispute outside my user space is a result of others apparently ignoring the repeated recommendations to drop the cudgels, as can be seen here, and this was allowed within the exceptions.
I am not insisting on confirmation of my work as legitimate here, because that would require more discussion and invite more disruption. I will wait a substantial period of time before addressing the fundamental issues, which are about principles, not personalities, outside of my user space. In my user space, I stay well within what is allowed on Wikiversity, and if I've erred -- I make mistakes! --, correction and criticism is welcome there, as suggested. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the personal attacks are stil there. The Banner talk 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki. Whatever I wrote, attack or not, will still be there if I were blocked, banned, pilloried, flayed, whatever. Even if pages are deleted, it's still there and any admin can read it. Suppression can make it readable only by oversighters. It's still there! The proposal here is to stop the debate, for now. It is tempting to write more, but I'm not. I encourage all involved to just stop. If anyone is being attacked here, that should stop, because if someone is attacked, they have the right to respond. Who is currently being attacked here? And, please, a neutral user is requested to close this continual excuse for more debate. --Abd (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand that you want this discussion closed, preferably without getting your knuckles smacked. But there is no need to throw in personal attacks, never. And just striking them is not enough for me. That is just a cosmetic trick. The Banner talk 21:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hold my knuckles in the door. If I do, I'm responsible. The desired result for The Banner? Unstated. Striking is not enough. What, then? An answer to this question is not required, lack of answer will not "prove" I was right. I am a long-term stand for free education, free in every respect, and this includes free speech. That is not license to libel, but civil criticism of action, especially the action of a sysop, is not libel, and this is true even if it is "wrong." Free criticism is necessary for the health of WMF wikis. The pot is calling the kettle black here. Let's go back to cooking lunch. --Abd (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice rant, but your PAs are still standing. And now you start also commenting on my on other projects, introducing the problems there. Stop doing so annoying and difficult. Start creating some content on your home-Wikiversity and leave the Dutch Wikiversity alone. The Banner talk 03:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: as this topic needs to come to an end, as continuing wouldn't be helpful and no consensus is present, I draw here a conclusion. The full Dutch community considers it necessary to stop Abd from any further involvement or actions upon the Dutch community, their individual users, or material from the Dutch part of Beta Wikiversity. As Abd hasn't shown any goodwill or constructive attitude at this project this month, there is no use for him to continue on this wiki and a block of his account is a logic consequence of that situation. The Dutch community would have expected, like such is normal on most other wikis, that a custodian action would have been undertaken as soon as the disturbing behaviour was noticed by custodians. That is, however, not the case on this wiki. Instead of showing decisiveness or other solution, there is a lack of participation to limit the disturbing presence, but instead went finger pointing to the Dutch community, while the actual blame that the situation went worse and worse lies fully with the custodians which didn't do anything to solve it when it was needed. Therefore the Dutch community has lost the confidence in the custodians of this wiki. The Dutch community doesn't consider any continuation of the discussion pointless.
Result: As there is no consensus on any action, and the situation of finger pointing should come to an end, nothing is undertaken. Romaine (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No result, Neutral close requested. Romaine added a formatting change to make it appear that this request was closed; however, I reverted that, because closes should not be done by an involved user, especially when accompanied by more provocative and outraged finger-pointing, as can be easily seen above, under Conclusion. This request remains open for comment from the community, until closed by a neutral user, preferably a neutral custodian, which I do request. This is important in this situation because Romaine is a custodian, who has threatened to block me, and who repeats a claim, above, that I should be blocked. --Abd (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close today by involved user, no action. This edit may be reverted by any user who wishes to keep this discussion open. --Abd (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request warning or block of User:The Banner edit

Please take action against user:Abd. He is insisting on continued attention, so here it is, after my request that, with the pot calling the kettle black, we return to cooking lunch, he wrote, above:

Nice rant, but your PAs are still standing. And now you start also commenting on my on other projects, introducing the problems there. Stop doing so annoying and difficult. Start creating some content on your home-Wikiversity and leave the Dutch Wikiversity alone. The Banner talk 03:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uncivil interchange on meta

I was planning to not mention it here, but since The Banner brings it, he just voted to support the closure of Beta, on the RfC still open there.[4] That RfC is on my watchlist, so I was notified. His comment there was not understandable. He doesn't realize that Beta is already an independent project, a wiki incubator. That's also reflected in his comment above. This is not the "Dutch Wikiversity," and this page is a general custodian request page for Beta. The "Dutch Wikiversity" is an incubation project here, defined by Category:Wikiversiteit. nl.wikiversity could not possibly be an independent project yet. The content has just been decimated. The full discussion on meta can be seen at permanent link, at the bottom of the section linked.

There is a discussion on User talk:Romaine where the agenda and attitude of The Banner and Romaine is clear.[5] Some possibly rough translations from that:

Accusation of sock or meat puppetry
I get the eerie feeling that the gentleman who commented on my page move is actually a hand puppet of the other troublemaker. His behavior is in any case identical. The Banner talk 23:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference to Ivan Shmakov, (CentralAuth), a Russian Wikibooks sysop, who made a helpful and correct comment to a request by The Banner, rejected icily. That full discussion is at [6]. In spite of the advice by two users, the page move still has not been made. I would be the "other troublemaker," certainly. I have never had any off-wiki contact with Ivan Shmakov, and, AFAIK, I had never seen his name until he edited this page.

Deliberate obfuscation
Or else it is someone of the same category. I think it is time that we stop communicating in English: it gives outsiders only the opportunity to react.

(This and other comments in italics below are from Romaine.)

"Outsiders" are obviously those of us at Beta who support and encourage the formation of new Wikiversities, following the original Wikiversity project concept, who are not Dutch. Many times Romaine has claimed that I couldn't possibly know anything about the Dutch Wikiversity, because I'm not Dutch. Well, if any Dutch users read this, I'd appreciate correction of my translations. How am I doing?

A neutral comment is considered hostile.
Regarding this, I gave links to an overview of the problems and within minutes he started firing.

This is a reference to Shmakov's comments in this original request for a block, where he pointed out the lack of evidence for my "accusations. (That is, on user talk page comments which were informal, not demands for action.) He actually criticized me. The user is clearly neutral. But he did not support a block, his offense.

Categorization of users as enemies
This wiki seems to be a magnet for that kind of people.

That is, those who support the Wikiversity concept, which includes academic freedom and "learning by doing," which was designed for learners of all ages and skill levels, and which therefore is highly tolerant and patient, those who dare to criticize the actions of a new custodian, who is apparently not interested in learning about how Wikiversity works, and anyone who dares to point out that Romaine's accusations were evidence-free, something noticed by at least two users, with custodians obviously concluding that there was no cause for block, as demanded.

Beta users are "rodents"
I expected no action from your application on the request page, but it attracts all sorts of rodents and the reactions of the officials on this wiki is even worse than expected.

So a bad reaction was expected, and what they got was worse. In fact, custodians actually considered some kind of topic ban for Romaine. Can you believe these rodents? My daughter has pet rats, so "rodent" is a friendly word for me. Perhaps they mean it that way?

Ignore English users
... it might be better not to respond to English users, unless they again hijack or something.

"Hijack" has been used by Romaine to mean touching a page on the "Dutch Wikiversity," or even to copy the content, as I did to User:Abd/Plan 2014, which is now readable on en.wikiversity because Romaine deleted it here. (There was no community request to delete that page).

Beta is a dump
For now we should not be distracted, but should focus on the content in Dutch, so we can leave this dump as quickly as possible as quickly as we thought when we have some content. ... - Romaine (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion shows a battleground mentality, and a lack of respect for the diverse user base of all WMF wikis. There is no special language requirement for participation anywhere. While I find the expressed attitude to be of great concern, there is nothing to be done about it at this point, if disruption stops.

Romaine may not need a warning

Romaine did attempt to close this RCA; had he simply closed it with no argument, dropping the cudgel, that would have been it, it would have stayed closed. But he continued to attack, and, it's clear, he attempted close only because he saw he could not "win," but perhaps he thought he could let his "Conclusion" stand without challenge. Still, Romaine apparently stopped.

The Banner has continued to push

The Banner did not stop, in spite of many requests that were made civilly and without prejudice. His response to Romaine described the advice about the page move "difficult," and a "fuss." He refers to a "group of V. troublemakers," which Shmakov and I supposedly belong to. I do not recognize the reference. I'm requesting custodian action as appropriate to stop continued disruption. Please warn or block User:The Banner Thanks. --Abd (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't act on this as I don't consider myself uninvolved anymore (The Banner directly accused me of "attacks" a few sections above), but I wonder why the Dutch language Wikiversity is defined by the Category:Wikiversiteit. As far as I know, the requirement is to use a category named after the ISO lang code of the corresponding language project, thus Category:NL. Am I not up-to-date and has something changed in the process? Regards, Vogone (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vogone, it would be best if another custodian handles this, but you are only involved here in an attempt to resolve the disruption. You did not formally warn me, but you did negotiate an agreement with me, which I attempted to follow. All highly involved users here (The Banner, Romaine, and myself) have clearly seen warnings. My opinion is that you may certainly warn. If necessary to prevent continued disruption, you may also block. Where there is a possible cause for recusal, if you choose to block, you should state that it is an emergency block, and request review of your action here. A custodian does not become "involved" merely because the custodian is accused of involvement. It is best, however, to seek another custodian. It's worth waiting a bit. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikiversiteit is actually used, but this was done long ago by users who were clueless about the overall impact. This should be changed, and it is now not such a big job! But it should not be changed by non-Dutch users, right now, it could be provocative. However, any Dutch user could change this without provocation, I'd think. Otherwise the rest of us, my suggestion, will wait a bit for the smoke to clear. Then we will propose this, so that the Dutch community -- and every Beta user -- may comment. This is a general Beta issue, not exclusively a Dutch issue. --Abd (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT-request. Abd, don't act so desperate. It is your own behaviour that leads to this. You are just disturbing the peace here without any attempt of doing something useful. The fact that you are following me around, even on Meta, is proof enough of this. The fact that your are translating texts to find ammunition is another proof. Stop your disruptive behaviour. You did not apologize, you did not remove/oversight the PAs. So I have to reason not keep the block-request standing.
You have written a nice rant here, in which you use a lot of words to hide that you have content-wise no clue what is going on. The fact that you need the whole recent history and edits of an other user to blame me, is just proof that your request is just a pointy-request to deflect the discussion of your disruptive behaviour and PAs. I do not buy that.
Under no circumstances I will let my bully away from the Dutch Wikiversity by a guy who does not speak Dutch at all, so who can not properly judge what was going on there.The Banner talk 10:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any translation error or misunderstanding of what was written? Is it required to "speak Dutch" to work on the Dutch project here? On resources, I would not contribute content in Dutch unless there was some special reason, but it is very clear that I may comment on process and talk pages using machine translation, or even in English, and others have commented on the Dutch process pages in English. It's done all the time on various language projects. --Abd (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that you use it to disrupt. The Banner talk 13:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update on The Banner edit

I posted a comment on Babel permanent link as of now regarding the use of language categories here, because Dutch users had removed them, and Category:NL is, by tradition and necessity, how the Dutch Wikiversity is defined and distinct from other Beta projects. The Banner replied, with increasing incivility as I explained the situation.

  • His first comment was reasonably civil, a question.
  • His second repeated the prior claims (here and on meta) that "Beta custodians" were a problem.[7] Since The Banner has supported the closure of Beta, I then suggested alternatives.
  • His third comment was beyond the pale.[8]. To be sure, he then removed the comment. It contained:
You do not even have the intention of being polite and useful. Do you really hope to scare everybody away with your disruptive behaviour?
  • However, his edit summary removing the comment was:
(Undo revision 163320 by The Banner (talk) waste of time, as "Don't feed the trolls")
  • It is clear that The Banner doesn't understand the suggestions made, and there could be a language problem. The suggestions made were polite, sincere, not "trolling," and all were legitimate options supporting what The Banner appeared to want, except that if the hostile attitude continues, I mentioned that I'd likely oppose an independent Dutch Wikiversity -- until the underlying policy issues are resolved. Regardless, even allowing for a language problem, his response is grossly uncivil, noncollaborative, and disruptive.
  • I request that, as another user was warned,[9] The Banner be warned, by a custodian. I am delaying work on resources here because of the ongoing problems, and a resolution of the template issue is something that should be handled before more time is wasted. (But no decision on templating is requested, that's not a custodian action at this point. This request is purely about disruptive, gross incivility.) Thanks. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    struck "language problem" which was an attempt provide an excuse for the behavior, certainly not to insult, but striking since the user took it that way. It is difficult for me to read Dutch and it would not be an insult to me to suspect I might have a "language problem" with Dutch, and that is why, above, I asked for correction of any translation errors. --Abd (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please stop with your personal attacks, mr. Abd? You go on and on with them. I take your constant referral to "language problem" as a personal insult. It is your combat behaviour that is highly disruptive and discouraging to other editors. The Banner talk 23:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Abd edit

As Abd keeps throwing insults and personal attacks, like his repeated use of "language problem", I have to request a block to stop his combatant and disruptive behaviour. This behaviour is having a complete chilling effect on the whole Dutch community around here. The Banner talk 23:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the language problem comment, which was not intended as an insult. Misunderstanding is obvious, though. I doubt that the "whole Dutch community" is reading Babel and this page in English. The Banner was already asked to stop his provocative commentary by Romaine, the Dutch custodian. I'm not responding more here, absent a request, because the matter is clear for any custodian who investigates. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is clear enough that just striking an insult is not enough. That is just window dressing that leaves the insult still visible for everyone. The personal attack is still there, just like the other personal attacks against me. And Romaine did not ask me to stop "provocative commentary" (that is another personal attack of you, my dear Abd), he asked me to stop wasting time on a disruptive and provocative editor. The Banner talk 00:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English: "provocative commentary" is commentary which provokes, it is assessed through the effect, not the intention. This was Romaine's post. In Dutch, at the end:
ook mijn verzoek aan jou is om er niet meer te reageren, omdat ieder nieuw bericht enkel uitlokkend zal fungeren met meer in plaats van minder gedoe.
My translation:
My request to you is to not to respond more, because each new post only is provocative and will create more instead of less hassle.
In context, as well, Romaine says that he is stopping response, and he asks you to stop it as well, because (my translation):
"... the discussion leads nowhere, ultimately only negative consequences can it have for ourselves."
As always, if my translations are incorrect in any important way, correction is invited.
The Banner, you are grossly careless with truth, so [stuck in] believing that I'm wrong that you look for everything you can criticize, and don't check. The effect is that you lie. You were asked to stop "provocative posts" because they cause "negative consequences." He did not, there, call me a "disruptive and provocative editor." Again, follow his advice! Stop it! If you continue, it will only bring "negative consequences" for you. Beta is tolerant, but there are limits. --Abd (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If your Dutch was good enough, you could have understand the situation. Now you fail and turn the truth around to suit your provocative and disruptive behaviour. The Banner talk 09:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My Dutch is terrible, but I don't rely only on Google, I look up the words wherever meaning is not clear, and consider context, as I did above. If necessary, we can get a neutral Dutch translation. Necessary? --Abd (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a confirmation from a Dutch user that the translation I posted in this request is accurate. Because he is not necessarily "neutral" (It's Timboliu), I am providing The Banner with an opportunity to examine the above carefully, and, if appropriate, to apologize for implying that the translations were defective. That is a misrepresentation of fact, an especially serious offense in an academic community, it can be a bannable action (not merely blockable), because of the harm and confusion it can cause. Do we need a neutral translator to confirm (or reject) my translation, or was it accurate as to the sense of it? Do we take this back to the Dutch community on the Wikiversity:Forum? --Abd (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move back / copy edit

Please take action against user:Abd. During cleanup I had moved a page to my own userspace. By now, a small project hydrology has appeared on the surface. So, to my opinion User:The Banner/Drainage perceel basis 1 has to be moved back to main space but I like to retain a copy for work on my own course-in-development. The Banner talk 16:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the problem? As long as the page has substantial content that can be of interest to others (alas, I cannot judge this case myself), – you’re free to move it to mainspace. And you can continue to develop it there!
My opinion is that you can even have a certain degree of editorial control over what gets there. And should someone decide to adapt the content for his or her needs, – he or she could then simply take the latest version and put it on a new page (providing a link to the source page in the edit summary, so that the origin is clear and the author(s) are properly attributed, as per CC BY-SA.)
(Thus, I see no custodian action being necessary.)
Ivan Shmakov (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice for you, but I keep the request standing. The Banner talk 00:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't state what you want a custodian to do, you are unlikely to get a meaningful response. Please be specific. Moving pages is something which every user can do, thus does not require custodian assistance. Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Banner moved the subject page from mainspace, first to an improper name, then to the present name in his user space. Both redirects were deleted the same day. If one wishes to keep a copy of the page, that can be done with copy/paste. Basically, you would move the page back and copy the wiki text into the redirect created. (Ivan Shmankov has correctly pointed to the requirement for attribution.) If it is moved back to mainspace, the Dutch Wikiversity categories should be restored, since they were removed. Ivan Shmakov and Vogone were both correct, there is no need for a custodian action here. "Undo" does not work with page moves, but the page can still be moved back over its redirect if it is there. Be careful with page moves, they can create a (small) mess to clean up. --Abd (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no intent to breaking the conditions of the license what would happen if I followed your advice. The Banner talk 10:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A permanent link in the page creation summary should do it as well. Vogone (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is usually how I do it. I have copied a great deal of WMF content from wiki to wiki, I have never seen a problem with this. If it's done incorrectly, it's easy to fix. There is no problem. So I will fix this. I'll come back with a report. --Abd (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)\[reply]
  •   Done. The original page was moved back to mainspace, and reverted to the mainspace version. Drainage perceel basis 1. I created a copy at [11]. The source page is attributed in the page creation summary, and also on the attached talk page. The license is fully satisfied. If the Banner wishes to work on that page in my user space, he is welcome. Or more likely he would prefer to move it to his user space, he is also welcome to that. If he does that, he will need to change the page name. He could make his own copy. --Abd (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://beta.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action/archive/2014&oldid=336677"