TCNSV (TeleComNasSprVen) established an account on Wikiversity, 20 July, 2010, but the first edit was 27 October, 2010. The user, globally, has been active on many WMF wikis, see global contributions. The user has over 10,000 contributions on Wikipedia; the account showed familiarity with wiki syntax from the beginning. In IRC chat, was evasive about prior or other accounts.
On Wikiversity, TCNSV appears to have begun with Recent Changes patrol. TCNSV has 791 edits to Wikiversity, but 193 have been deleted. The edits are generally wikignoming. No interest in the creation of educational resources has been shown.
It is not possible for me to see TCNSV's possible usage of speedy deletion tags for pages that have been deleted. Many of the pages nominated on RfD, and then deleted, would have been appropriate for speedy deletion, however.
Nominations for deletion
- Category:Resources by date modified
- Category:Categories by status
- Category:Branches of geography
- Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter
- Precursors of Chemistry (-1800)
- Wikiversity:Redirects for discussion
- Category:Redirects for deletion
- Template:Unknown license
- Wikiversity:Custodian intervention against vandalism
- Digestive system
- Martha Rendell
- States of matter
- Redirects in pseudo-namespace Transwiki
- Template:Non-free media rationale
- Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Test/ (set of pages)
February 6, because the RfD page was accumulating unclosed requests, I started closing discussions where the result seemed clear to me. One of these was reverted by User:Guido den Broeder but consensus was quickly found.. However, TCNSV was exercised to add a signature to one of the closed sections, believing that it might auto-archive., I reverted that, explaining that the page wasn't auto-archived.
Then, 5 days after the original close, TCNSV reverted some closes, removing the closing comments entirely, with the edit summary, (since Abd wants proof of why his closures are considered controversial...)
- later nominations
- Wikiversity:Requests for Inquisitorial
- Wikiversity:Inquisitor Committee
- Wikiversity:Custodian requests
- Clinical Practice
- Wikiversity:Blocking policy/Enforcement and self-reversion
- Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies2
Useless re-opening of RfDs
TCNSV began regularly re-opening RfDs, especially those where he was the nomiinator, that I'd closed. I had suggested that, if I was an involved closer, any registered user should be able to re-open, though there should be a reason, the close should not be reverted just because I was involved; and I also suggested, and requested, that re-opening be by other than the nominator. This was consistently rejected by TCNSV.
- Perivity (twice)
- Digestive system
- Wikimedia Ethics/Case Studies2 (This had not been closed, but was a nomination by TCNSV that did not present a deletion argument, it was proxying for an IP editor, and had accordingly been moved to the Talk page by me.)
- "Inexplicable physics articles"
- This was promptly re-closed by a custodian, with effectively the same conclusion. (The custodian has explicitly permitted removal of the tags he added.)
Except for Perivity and the "Inexplicable physics articles," all of these were pages that TCNSV had nominated.
Because WV:Deletion policy was silent on closing process, I attempted to add some information. TCNSV reverted it without attempt to incorporate what would be acceptable to him. Darklama restored a more condensed version, along similar lines, setting a limit of a month for deletion discussions, and allowing even more rapid close if there is no comment for a week. TCNSV commented on this with , a strange comment in which he claimed that the Talk page for the proposed deletion policy was "the wrong forum page" to discuss the editing of the policy and deletion policy itself.
The re-openings done by TCNSV have not shifted any results, they seem to be based entirely on ad-hominem argument based on the identity of the closer rather than the substance of the close, and a belief that deletion discussions should remain open until there is a clear consensus. None of the 18 closes that I have done have been reversed as to the end. It is possible that eventually, there will be an exception, but, at this point, there are 18 closes, of which two were second tries after a long pause. Three remain open, without progress toward any different conclusion, plus the one RfD that I'd moved to the Talk page.
Both by using RfD for non-controversial deletion discussions (most of the successful deletions could have been accomplished with a speedy deletion tag), and then by acting to keep deletions discussions open where he has not obtained his desired result, TeleComNasSprVen has damaged the utility of the RfD page. Many long-standing deletion discussions suppress participation.
The community should request that TCNSV conduct himself collaboratively, seeking consensus and not pursuing disputes that provide no benefit to the wiki. Wikiversity has very different deletion practice than Wikipeda, which TCNSV is more accustomed to.
Damage to Wikiversity community
TCNSV requested and obtained global lock on some Wikiversity accounts that had no edits off of Wikiversity, but that may have been socks of an account that had been editing "disruptively" elsewhere, or that equally well might be elementary school friends of that account holder, using the same class computer for occasional access. He attempted to do this again, with no current activity of any harmful nature at all, but failed, due to a more cautious steward. [evidence to be provided]
I have the sense that TCNSV is watching my contributions and tossing a monkey wrench in much of what I do. His work here has high correlation, as to page and timing, with mine. He reverted vandalism back on the Colloquium, after his removal of established user comments was reverted. Disrupting to make a point. IRC logs show that he's aware of being disruptive, that he may have come to Wikiversity for that purpose. [evidence to be provided]
 (The section on vina morales)