Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/April 2014

Changes to the default site typography coming soon

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:

• Summary of changes and FAQ
• Discussion page for feedback or questions
• Post on blog.wikimedia.org

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

Archiving request for custodianship

Hello. I have recently archived more than 10 requests for custodianship that was started and last commented more than a year ago. Any problems, please state here. Thanks! --Golden_burg111 21:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Font Change

It appears that someone made a change to the cascading style sheets supporting Wikiversity yesterday, changing the heading fonts from sans-serif to serif. I haven't identified where the change was made yet, but I have found a work-around. If you prefer sans-serif heading fonts, you can go to Preferences / Appearance and add Custom CSS. See User:Dave_Braunschweig/common.css for settings that return the headings to sans-serif. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, not sure how I missed the announcement two sections above this. But the information is helpful for anyone wanting to go back to the old view. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Some more possible duplicate pages

Further to the comments above, the following might be duplicate pages:

• Educational Law & Ethics and EdLawEthics
• Perspectives on the offence of receiving stolen property and unlawful possession under nigerian criminal law and Perspectives of the offence of receiving stolen property and unlawful possession under nigerian criminal law (it is the second word in each page name that differs).

I have not detected any differences (apart from categories etc that I've added), but I don't have time to read them carefully or from start to finish. James500 (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can use Special:ComparePages to compare pages and identify differences. There were some minor differences, but nothing that appeared to be significant. I've merged the page histories together and left your most recent edit on the given page as it's current version. You can compare histories yourself to see if any content should be restored or removed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. James500 (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to create NonFreeWiki

meta:NonFreeWiki

This proposal would centralize non-free content (i.e., Fair Use and other nonfree files), in a wiki like Commons, but designed specially for non-free content.

Comments

• It assumes that the English Wikipedia has the most generous Exemption Doctrine Policy. That may not be true, in practice. Not clear is how and where the decisions would be made as to what is allowed. The proposal may become clarified in ways that would make it unobjectionable and a positive help to us.

• It is unstated how it will come to pass that local uploads are disabled. Presumably, developer action. Can we opt out? The devil is in the details. A properly configured and administered NonFreeWiki could be extremely useful. Administered oppressively, a nightmare.

• A simpler solution would be to use Commons for non-free content as well, clearly tagged as such. Why is a whole new wiki needed to do what could be done locally on Commons by a fairly simple system of tagging files, simply by expanding Commons' mission? All that would be involved would be a removal of a standard Commons deletion reason. Common's mission to provide free files would not be harmed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  Why don't you comment on the proposal on Meta? PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Y Done --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree this could be good to have, but I must ask that we be free to opt out. Otherwise, once again someone with less expertise will be deleting files that we are using. Another possibility is to have that NonFreeWiki as Wikiversity. While we can use free content and may label it as such, we are also free to use NonFree content. Just some thoughts and a suggestion. Hope this helps! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a proposal in contradiction to the wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy. That is, we are not totally free to use NonFree content (and would not be free under the NonFree Wiki proposal. We may only, by WMF policy, use nonfree content with an appropriate nonfree rationale, typically a Fair Use rationale, per our Exemption Doctrine Policy. We are generally free to interpret our own EDP, and we may amend it as needed. The WMF resolution requires that non-free usage be limited, which can then conflict, to a degree, with our educational purpose. We attempt to compromise, in our actual practice, such that neither goal is seriously damaged and both are fostered. If you are interested in this proposal, I suggest looking at the meta document and discussion. I'm not getting the sense this is going to take off, but I could be wrong. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of categories

Hi!

I have a question. According to the deletion log each of these categories has been emptied of there one or more resources each, these were listed in the Category:Articles containing non-English-language text by Thenub314: Category:Articles containing Spanish language text, Category:Articles containing Latin language text, Category:Articles containing Japanese language text, Category:Articles containing French language text, and Category:Articles containing Danish language text, then each of these categories deleted. Why were these deleted? Each contained at least one resource, usually more than one, and were causing no harm. Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I was attempting to be useful and do some cleanup. I visited Special:UnusedCategories and deleted some empty categories. I did (try to) check that each category was empty before I deleted it. These happened to be near the top of the alphabetical list. If I deleted any containing resources, it was a mistake and I apologize. As I look at these categories, they still appear empty, which resources were contained in them? Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I went to Category:Articles containing non-English-language text and began by checking the first resource that may be mine: Art - there is one for French, the second Astrohistory - there is one for French, 3rd Astronomy/Laboratories - three for French. It's going to take quite a while to check the 57 pages in the general category and not all are mine. Perhaps the fastest way is to restore each category. There are many resources here at Wikiversity that use these languages. I can add some to each as soon as I complete the resources for the astronomy course that I am completing. This will be finished by Friday. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

If a category is reasonably likely to be used in the future, and if it does no harm, it should normally not be deleted. This can be handled by placing a request to keep the category on the category page (a template that effectively says "please do not delete if empty" can handle this, do we have one?). As with any speedy deletion, the deletion can and should be reversed on request, without fuss. The whole point of "speedy" is to make it simple and quick to do noncontroversial deletions, not to create an enforced decision that prevents ordinary users from developing and organizing content. Thenub, one procedure that we have developed, it's not policy, but probably should be, is for custodians not to speedy delete solely on their own initiative, absent immediate harm from a page. Rather, the custodian tags the page as would any other user, with a speedy deletion tag. It takes very little time, and any other custodian, verifying the deletion reason, can delete, and we handle speedy deletion requests, usually, quite rapidly. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

{{empty category}} can be added to a category to inform custodians that a category is expected to be empty sometimes. -- darklama  18:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mashallsumter, I have restored the category and I will also chip in with the 57 pages as my time permits. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, there is a face-palm glitch in the name of these categories: they should be "pages" not "articles." We could say "resources," but "pages" is a bit more general.

Thanks, Darklama, and Thenub. We have had the practice of deleting non-English pages, but there is actually a better practice, which is to set up translating them as projects. The original language page then would still be kept as a subpage, or as "archived to history," for reference. University libraries do contain works in languages other than the language used in classes! And, of course, there are language and language projects.

The individual page language categories should be subcategories of the "non-English" page category. I just made one so (French), they should all be that way. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, what's really going on here: Template:Lang adds pages to the relevant language category. The template documentation was not imported, that should be fixed, if we are going to use this template at all. The template has a "nocat" option that does not categorize the page. Since by this time I realized that the non-English category here was appearing with only a few words being displayed with the Lang template, and thought that utterly silly, I looked at Wikipedia, and, sure enough, the language categories were not displayed. They are hidden categories on en.wikipedia. (I am not sure why the categories are even created. What's the use of that category?) I would think these should also not be displayed here. I assumed, incorrectly, that "articles containing French text" would be articles with actual French text, not just individual words or a few words! Because some people are working on this, I'm not going to hide the categories yet. Alternatively, we could remove the categorization from the template, or make noncategorization the default. In that case, the template would be used simply for a few words, and then with a "cat" option for major text in the non-English language. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no Move tab

The help file says a logged in user can move a page, but alas. Lysdexia (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lysdexia: Which help page are you referring to? It needs to be updated then since it is not accurate. A user needs to be autoconfirmed to be able to move a page. See Wikiversity:Autoconfirmed users. --Glaisher (discuss • contribs) 06:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW, could someone update Mediawiki:Help to link to the local Help:Contents instead of the page on MediaWiki.org. Glaisher (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

[1] Lysdexia (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Lysdexia: Ah, that was the problem indeed. The Help link on the sidebar is linked to a page on another wiki. That page applies to other default MediaWiki installations, I assume. AFAIK, in all WMF wikis a user needs to be autoconfirmed to move a page. I have requested that link to be updated above. --Glaisher (discuss • contribs) 06:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Y Done I've updated the help link as that seems like a reasonable oversight. Btw the page to update was MediaWiki:Helppage to change what page to link to, the other changes the text to display for the link. -- darklama  11:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Now that this is fixed -- thanks, Lysdexia -- you might as well tell us what you wanted moved. You could ask any regular user to move a page for you. Page moves are difficult to undo, for ordinary users, though, so most of us would be happier if you ask. I now see that Dave has offered to help on your talk page.
• Looking at your contributions, you have only edited one page. The community has been working on structure and organization. That page, What is the sixth sense?, is quite bit out of place as a top-level resource, and the content is not neutral, importing a long-term Wikipedia controversy here, without making it clear that there is a controversy (such as that NSF reference. That has been the subject of long-term revert warring on en.wikipedia).) Mess, a user essay ("please do not edit") on a controversial issue becomes a coatrack for pseudoskepticism. What should have been done, when this was seen, would have been to userfy it. That way, the user request could have been respected. It could also be respected in mainspace, as an essay subpage. It's still possible. I don't suggest moving it until there is some consensus on what to do, if that's what you had in mind. (As I recall the WP controversy, that report was not carefully crafted, the term was used casually, and that usage was transient, and it's a primary source. "Pseudoscience" is a catchall-term sometimes used, not so much by academics, to refer to non-science. Pseudoscience, properly and historically, refers to non-science that pretends to be science. And that, then, becomes highly sensitive to point of view, and, in fact, many of the people who casually label fields as pseudoscience are not, themselves, following the scientific method, so the claim of "pseudoscience" is sometimes "pseudoscientific." Lovely, eh? In any case, welcome to Wikiversity, Lysdexia, nice nameuser. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:ListUsers/transwiki

Although the word “transwiki” can be found in discussions, I see no such privilege is currently assigned to non-sysops, and here we can see a soft redirect. Did the local community ever consider importing some content from, say, English Wikipedia? nIcnis Mrsi (discuss • contribs) 07:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I made imports from Wikipedia, for material that is instructional and that doesn't fit Wikipedia's goals. Sometimes I check articles at risk for deletion that are science based. Also, in hopes for bringing people who create to Wikiversity. I think a group of importers should be made as well. You can use Wikiversity:Import to make an import request. If in a rush, you can also copy and paste, AND leave a note in the edit history from where it was copied. (A talkpage note helps too). When I notice this, I try to import and merge the histories for better attribution. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 08:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My only trasnwiki proposal from en.wikipedia is here, but since I do not work in en.wikipedia nowadays, it is not very important for me. I primarily need the flaguser right in Russian Wikiversity, but this project is much larger and hence I started with a reconaissance here. Incnis Mrsi (discuss • contribs) 09:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I imported Example of a non-associative algebra. It looks like that's the article you wanted imported, right? For the flag, you can use commons:. If commons doesn't have the picture you want, copy and paste the flag image, but importantly write in the edit summary the source of the page of the flag. Its something like, [[ru:v:file:exampleflag]], which you may already know. Can you post the page of the image? I don't know if I would be able to import it, since my options are of English Wikibooks, Wikisource, WikiQuote, Wikipedia, and WikiversityBeta, but I'll look into it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you say if that works out? I realized it wouldn't be common to import from other languages to an English Wiki, but there can be reason for it. Actually, see if the file is at commons or if it can be copied to commons (within its license), then use a link to commons. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Imports are limited to the options in the list. If consensus in support of additional options can be established, then a bug report can be filed to request the change with a link to the discussion as proof of community support. Consensus and bug reports are also required for adding an importer group. My opinion is importing can be difficult to get right. Custodians sometimes break things by choosing to import templates too, and deciphering the right revision to restore can be difficult. My opinion on importing from other languages is that it isn't needed, a link to the work in the edit summary is sufficient attribution. -- darklama  12:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Incnis Mrsi can accomplish the task without the import then, with aid from above suggestions. I was just asking for opinion. And the solution is suitable in my opinion. I've learned not to do a cascading import as well. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have special privileges in other language Wikiversities. You have to ask someone at the respective language Wikiversity. If you need that type of import, copy/paste, then leave a message in the edit history of the location, and in the talkpage. Attribution can also additionally be done by leaving usernames (from the original page) in the edit history, if a mistake was made, use a (pseudo) dummyedit to correct it. By leaving a message on the talkpage, anyone in the future can be informed. Templates are available of copied-from to translated. That should take care of it. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Poetlister (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)

Hi! Can someone lighten me up on this, this user is so far, as of my knowledge, is globally locked, but is unblocked here. I don't know the angles here, can someone get me caught up? I can also try emailing this user if I can too see about this stuff. --Golden_burg111 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Goldenburg, since you ask. See m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Poetlister. Poetlister was active here, was not disruptive here, and was not blocked. However, the global lock prevented him from accessing his account. (He was first locked without a ban discussion, that was lifted at my request, as I recall, but then when the ban discussion was closed with a ban, he was locked again. He then edited for two days (with my cooperation) as User:Poetlister1. (back up from the redirect to the original Poetlister 1 page or look at [2].) He was blocked by SB_Johnny per the global ban. I raised the issue, and there was no consensus for block, but also no consensus for unblock, Prior policy had been that to maintain a block took consensus. So, after waiting nine days, I unblocked, and Poetlister was promptly blocked again without discussion by Thenub314 and I was "emergency desysopped." And, in short order, blocked myself by SB Johnny.

Poetlister had done some pretty offensive things in the past, but had stopped, apparently. He did have another sock at the time (not here), if I'm correct, with the knowledge of a local bureaucrat and checkuser, whose name I won't mention. I had pointed out that if there was a worry that Poetlister would sock, the ban would not stop him, that if this was really a risk, we would be safer with Poetlister editing openly here, as he was, because there would then be regular information for checkuser to look at for comparison.

(Checkuser information is only kept for a few months, supposedly. And someone who wants to avoid detection by checkuser will change their access; if they are running two accounts, though, it only takes one slip and they can be detected. There are other ways to detect simultaneous socking, I will not disclose. I used to care about this stuff.)

Later, User:Collingwood was privately accused of being Poetlister, and, in a WMF office action, that was confirmed, based on undisclosed evidence. So, if the Office was correct, I was correct that banning Poetlister did not stop disruption, Collingwood was about to become a bureaucrat here. We do not know how the identification was made, and I do not have high confidence that it was accurate. But it could be.

Basically, to sum this up, Goldenburg, the WMF community is not always too bright, as to those who might show up on meta for a ban discussion. Poetlister was very unpopular, and quite a number of administrators had been embarrassed by aspects of the Poetlister affair. These people show up in high numbers, compared to the general community. The global ban, rather than being truly based on protection, obviously, was based on punishment. He had been Bad, and that cannot be tolerated.

People don't like being punished, do they? And if they can get back, or continue ignoring those who would punish them, they often do. How did you react to the early attempts to block and lock you? I know what you did. You rebooted your modem. You registered new accounts. Worked like a charm, right? Now, they would eventually have rolled out bigger guns, with range blocks etc., but, at the same time, you would likely have learned better ways of avoiding detection. You were smart enough. You had already learned that the banhammer is vapor, it only hurts when one is trying to be a part of the community and feels rejected. I.e., it only hurts those who actually have good faith, and have invested much in an account, or who might respond to guidance and respectful support -- as you did. I'm still not going to tell you what you could do if banned!

As you know, I'm now investigating the Augusto De Luca affair. The antispammers got hysterical over that. Studying it, what I'm coming up with is that if he had actually intended to spam, what he did was really stupid. He's not stupid, he's a world-class photographer, obviously successful, and he doesn't need Wikipedia for business. He's been releasing relatively high-resolution copies of his photos, including those of notable people, for free use, his activity has really been about his legacy, i.e, leaving behind something of value when he dies. He's about sixty. As we get to that age, we start to think about things like that (I'm 70 next month).

And what I'm seeing shows me that the wikis are enormously vulnerable to disruption, they have not yet seen someone who knows what to do to make an enormous mess, i.e. vandalize the projects, and efficiently, so that they could do it many times for low personal cost, whereas the cleanup would require a lot of work. And I'm not going to say how this would be done, just that the focus on a stupid claim of "spam" distracts them from the real dangers; and they are violating policies while not addressing the real problems with policies. And there is no question that policies were extensively violated by some of them, at least. Policies that are there for very good reasons, not just incomplete policies that people violate because there is a need.

In order to handle the possible dangers, they will need policy changes, and they don't want to fix the policies, because the community would explicitly stop them from doing some of what they do.

It's a mess. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• I should clarify some points. I had asked the closing steward if his opinion was that Wikiversity could allow Poetlister to edit. He essentially said it was up to us. He did not believe that the ban that he closed forbade us from allowing him to edit here. The issue here was one of policy and procedure. The comments above about "not too bright" refers to what could be called "mob psychology," which can cause a collection of bright people to make dumb choices. In this case the stated goal (protecting the wikis) was contrary to the action taken (an inflexible ban). Sometimes that is what social scientists call a "cascade," where people come to believe things are true, sometimes a broad consensus appears, because others supported it, and this can start with as little as one trusted person. There are some notable examples that have been studied, where, for decades, something was accepted as a scientific consensus that never was, i.e, the methods of science had never been used. It's a general problem, it does not just happen on wikis, but our style of making decisions is particularly vulnerable to it.
• The nature of global bans has changed since then. The ban for Poetlister did not satisfy the current ban policy. That leaves the Poetlister ban a bit ambiguous. Bans, if they follow the ban procedure now in place, lead to a Terms of Service violation for editing when globally banned. The legal status of this is anyone's guess. Poetlister is not likely to test it. And nobody has been globally banned since. He's unique. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont see the reason, to block him localy. Not editing now, not making trouble.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't a block request. Goldenburg just wanted to know what happened. Poetlister cannot edit, as Poetlister, anyway, he's globally locked. Apparently we want him to play w:Whac-a-Mole with us, and it's no fun if you can see the mole all the time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

He is a very experienced sock puppeteer. A bright and skilled individual who has made such a mess of his participation at various WMF projects he was globally banned. When a sock is suspected it gets the attention of the folks that work at the WMF. Getting that level of notoriety is an accomplishment in and of itself. I would be hesitant to let him edit again. As they say fool me once shame on you, fool me twice... Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 00:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• "When a sock is suspected it gets the attention of the folks that work at the WMF. Getting that level of notoriety is an accomplishment in and of itself. I would be hesitant to let him edit again." I agree with this. It usually would be the case, as I trust WMF does their job properly. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This is all understandable, but there is one problem with it. The only one stopping Poetlister from editing is Poetlister. He can edit any time he wants. This is all part of the wiki setup. We cannot actually ban anyone. I'm banned from en.wikipedia. As a result of creating a single sock that was checkusered. Now, someone like me or Poetlister know how to evade checkuser detection. He was a checkuser. I was detected because I took no evasive actions at all. Part of my interest was that I wanted to see if a nondisruptive account, all edits satisfying policy, improving the project, all except for ban violation, would be detected. I had not illegitimately socked before (not counting IP edits), nor after that.

Remember w:WP:IAR, which used to be called Rule Number 1 for Wikipedia. That "rule" can be seen as requring block evasion. And, in fact, occasionally, reviewing Wikipedia articles, which I do all the time, I have edited them as IP, whenver autoblock was not active. Two or three times over about that many years.

So a global lock simply makes it more difficult to detect the registration of a sock puppet, and that allegedly happened here with User:Collingwood, so it was a long time before Collingwood was detected. And it took up substantial office time, apparently, and caused disruption here, that Collingwood was locked. If that was Poetlister, he simply had fun. It's a game of w:Whac-a-mole. Reviewing the history of global locks, which I'm now doing on meta, I see this over and over. The strict enforcement of someone's idea of policy -- actually contrary to explicit policy, often -- leads to extended, long-term disruption.

But these are wikis. Some of us have the idea that collective intelligence will manifest in wikis, that they will intrinsically improve over time, this was the original wiki vision. And that idea is strangely resistant to evidence. They could improve, but something is missing. What is that? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Leave present comments about particular users aside. It is foolish to say that user's cannot be banned because we cannot enforce it. This is a bit like saying "We should not pull over people who speed, because they will later be able to speed without us catching them." Yes, enforcement is difficult, and not always possible. But you do so to the best of your abilities. Some people have a habit of sockpuppeting. They pretend to be multiple user's in a single conversation, create false consensus, etc. In some cases the user pushes the community too far and need to be told not to return to the project. This is all a necessary (but prehaps not sufficient) part of wiki projects. And if this is the community decision, then you enforce the decision to the best of your abilities. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I have not said what Thenub dismisses. There is a world of unexamined assumption in what Thenub wrote. Who is "you" in the last sentence? One of the features of wiki design is that administrators are free to not enforce whatever. It's actually a standard executive privilege, and a regular source of tension in government, where the legislature demands that the executive enforce this or that, and the executive sits on his or her hands, and then the courts get involved, and, every time I've watched, the executive can still not act. In Massachusetts, the courts started seizing government vehicles to sell and pay for legally mandated campaign finance. They can't through the governor in jail for inaction. Everyone can jump up and down and get blue in the face, but, it's a piece of "executive privilege." Of course, if the executive fails to act according to the law or court decisions, the public can vote the person out, in democracies, anyway. On wikis? Uh, I was busy and just didn't have time to get to blocking that sock. Why are you asking me? Do you think I own the place?

Many administrative errors I've seen (in my opinion), occurred when an administrator enforced "consensus" when the administrator disagreed. That is, instead of not acting when disagreeing, the administrator did what they personally believed -- or claimed to believe -- was wrong or harmful, because it was "consensus." The problem is that wikis can be lousy at finding true consensus, participation can be heavily biased. That's why I've never been happy to see closes, when I was active on Wikipedia, like, "consensus is delete." And the administrator gives us no clue as to the reasons and relevant policies, etc.

and it may not be realized, but if closes are always the judgment of the administrator -- that's actually how it is supposed to be! -- i.e., as advised by the community -- then that administrator can actually undo the close, whereas if the administrator simply thinks that "the consensus was," then they cannot change it, and, again, I've seen this make it very difficult to reverse a poor decision. I actually got blocked on Wikipedia over this, in a disagreement with an administrator who had "enforced" a topic ban he disagreed with. Later, he became my best friend on the project, because he did come to understand what I was saying! And then they drove him off. Seriously drove him off. He'd become an arbitrator and his family was threatened with violence.

So many wiki people have no clue what happens behind the scenes, it can get very, very ugly. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question, "you" would have been "custodians" and the "your" would be better as "their". I don't mean to argue that custodians should enforce rules they do not agree with, though I can see how my paragraph comes off that way. Rather I meant to suggest if a custodian believes a ban should be in place and the ban is supported by the community, then they should attempt to enforce it to the best of their abilities. They shouldn't give up because their is the possibility of evasion. But yes, you and I are in complete agreement being a volunteer organization, it would be ridiculous to ask someone to enforce something they disagreed with, they should always be able to leave any matter to someone else to handle if someone else wants to. And at times, consensus works against all of us, and we move on and do other things. I simply read your previous remarks as a generically being applicable to any user and stating "UserX should not be blocked/locked because UserX can easily evade by socking since he knows how the tools work." I disagree with this generic argument.

Given how high passions run about that particular subject, I was always a bit surprised in the Poetlister case that various UK wikimedians who were passionate about this case never sought ans ASBO to prevent his further editing at the projects. I am not suggesting I would agree, but if I did feel that strongly it would be a logical step. Given that he has self-identified to WMF as part of being a check user, so he is identifiable as a human being and assuming he didn't falsify his identity. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just so you get that I did not argue that. The point I made can perhaps be understood by an analogy. A person has committed some crime, and there is fear that he will do it again. You have two options: you can confine him, or you can banish him. However, if you banish him, he can just assume a new identity and come back through the border. If you confine him, he will follow the law within confinement, or be banished from there as well. What choice to do you make? Confining him, to those whose purpose is to punish him, doesn't seem adequate, right? However, if the goal is protection, confining him is more likely to accomplish a protective purpose, he is in one place and can be closely watched.

Contrary to popular opinion, I did not attempt to oppose the global ban, only to argue that individual wikis should still have discretion (and, as well, that Poetlister was not likely to cause disruption on Wikiversity, the only wiki where he was editing openly).

The closing steward allowed that Wikiversity could allow him to edit. So the arguments here that we "must" block him or we would be defying the global community were simply not correct.

Later policy development by the WMF and the community may have clarified that, and violating a global ban is now considered a TOS violation, though the enforceability of that is highly questionable, legally. However, the global ban procedure that set up due process was not satisfied by the Poetlister ban, so this is the situation now: as far as TOS violations are concerned, there are no globally banned users.

As to ASBOs, who would have standing to file? Individual users have attempted to get restraining orders or police action, in the past, and there is the issue of standing, they would only be successful if there were (1) jurisdiction and (2) standing, i.e, personal harm. Such a filing would open many cans of worms. There would be counter-ASBOs filed, quite likely, and there are so many examples of antisocial behavior rampant, with evidence stronger than that against Poetlister, and involving *many administrators*, that this would be a mess of the highest order. No, the WMF will not go there, I'm sure.

The norm for the WMF is "hands off," and there are sound legal reasons for that. If the WMF intervenes in the wikis, other than as legally required, i.e, take-down of copyvio upon complaint or removal of claimed libel, then the WMF assumes liability for failure to act or harm resulting from error in action. Their legal counsel would not want the WMF to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

Hence the office staff do not necessarily have expertise in matters such as sock identification, so the idea of "trust them" is placing reliance where there is no particular reason to expect it. That doesn't mean that they were wrong, or even that they were probably wrong. Just that they could err. I've seen many sock identifications that were wrong, even judged by experts. Basically, evidence can be misleading if it isn't complete. The WMF did not disclose the evidence for Collingwood. Classic argument: they don't want criminals to know how they were caught. Courts generally reject evidence collected in that way! But the WMF has the right to make decisions, and that is why I haven't -- and won't -- challenge the Collingwood lock. It's their right and their responsibility, they own the wikis.

Even though you are a checkuser, you made a common mistake, you think the WMF knows who you are, and the same for Poetlister. This is one of the face-palm facts: the WMF does require identification, and then it discards it. Why? Well, this might be the reason: checkusers sometimes make false claims, or err and refuse to fix it, where they could. They could be sued for this. The WMF would be served with a subpoena for records. They don't want to provide those, so they don't keep the records. Now there is one small problem with this: if they don't keep the records, but assign the privilege, they become responsible for the actions. I have no doubt that a court would so decide. I have no idea what politics are behind the decision to discard the records. It's not clear, at all, why they require them in the first place, if they are not going to keep them. What does the RL identity mean if there is no personal responsibility? So, no, the identity of Poetlister could not be verified from WMF records. (I think they only require it, really, for proof of age.)

However, his identity is well-known. Still, that would not generally be admissible in court.

What does this have to do with Wikiversity? Well, Wikiversity is well-known as a refuge, famous for it, a haven for trolls and POV-pushers and banned users, etc. The fact behind that is that we have actually been a haven. And a few of those, blocked or banned elsewhere, have become useful users here, even administrators. To me, this is essential for the WMF, to have such a haven, particularly for academic research, but also for training users in various ways. If you are banned elsewhere, and this is your last hope, then you may be highly motivated to be collaborative, or, deja vu all over again.

The safe character of Wikiversity, in this way, has frequently come under attack, and the resulting battles have heavily damaged our wiki. It seemed that this had all calmed down, when the deletion of User:Augusto De Luca came up. User page created, with no local violation of policy. If anyone knew my history here, they would know that I'd challenge that speedy deletion. Speedy deletion was utterly inappropriate, because controversy could be expected. But Dave didn't know that, I assume, until it came up. He is quite new, in fact. This is why that page was so important, it was not because Augusto De Luca would be likely to edit here, but on the principle of welcome. We welcome all users who make a nondisruptive first edit, if we notice it, and Dave had welcomed De Luca. We don't care if they have vandalized every other project, if they don't vandalize ours. (Where I see vandalism here, I have, in the past, often checked cross-wiki, and have filed global lock requests if it was a vandalism or spam-only account.) You can see, here, a consistency.

This is my experience, being banned on en.wikipedia. If I were blocked and banned here (I was blocked here, not banned, and wasn't unblocked because I essentially gave up for two years. After all, if an unblock template on my talk page was getting no response, how much work is the wiki worth, to compile documentation on what happened? Not much!), then I have a pretty good idea what I'd do. I'd be editing Wikipedia, I'd be editing anywhere I pleased. Or not. I already know how to massively disrupt the wikis, if I chose to do that, and what restrains me is that I don't want to damage the wikis, not all the technical measures in place, because those only work against naive users. Given my history and what I know, and know how to do, the only reason I don't sock at Wikipedia is that I'm editing here, and there are stewards who would love to have an excuse to lock my account, I'm now totally convinced of that. Since I'm now going cross-wiki -- with legitimate edits, definitely allowed by policy -- that lock could come anyway, I've now seen global locks with much less excuse, Basically, with no excuse at all, not even any cross-wiki editing, no local blocks, just the opinion of a single steward.)

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Clickable button

Would you mind we enable w:Template:Clickable button 2? I would use it in one project.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not an enable issue, but an import issue. Now imported. Test and see if it works correctly. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Thx, suprisingly works. At cs.wp, they were manipulating global settings to enable it.--Juandev (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)