User talk:Abd

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikiversity User talk:Abd

Archive

Revert warring on this page[edit]

I have been removing certain content from this page, because it continues and intensifies a dispute that is currently useless for the improvement of Wikiversity, and I was requested to stop debating this. I fast-archived the last discussion because it contained a reply to Erkan Yilmaz on this matter, in which he suggested stopping the debate. I don't, however, leave comments on my talk page without response. The comments left, that I removed, were inflammatory, including a highly biased report of en.wikipedia history, which is normally irrelevant to Wikiversity, we do not discriminate against users because of their history elsewhere. The last restoration, that I reverted, may be seen at [1]. If anyone wishes to discuss an issue raised there with me, I suggest email, though I will accept civil requests for comment here. --Abd (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Aha, you admit that your attempts to restore the rubbish is not in the best interest of Wikiversity. Good to hear! The Banner talk 20:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The Banner, I never requested that "rubbish" be restored to the Dutch Wikiversity. I haven't requested that any page be restored there. What I requested is that the massively deleted content be restored and immediately moved to my user space for study. (If it were technically possible to restore to a new location, I'd have requested that instead.) We do this kind of study on en.wikiversity, wiki studies. The deletion of 5000 pages in a few days is a very unusual event. There are substantial policy issues involved, and we need to develop policy. That always, properly, begins with what is actually being done.
You claimed "99.99% rubbish, and it's quite clear that this was an exaggeration. Now, it's hard to define "rubbish," but it's clear from not only the Dutch Wikiversity deletion discussion and from what I've seen that some of the material was not "rubbish." It was often poorly organized, placed improperly, etc., all things which are easily fixable, and which we routinely fix on en.wikiversity. There was visible consensus on a merge, for example, for several pages. There were many pages with no-consensus, i.e., one user requesting deletion and another user opposing.
I did, in fact, move one page to User:Timboliu/Plan 2014. This had not been deleted, obviously, it had been skipped over. There was nothing wrong with this page, it simply in a less-than optimal location, because Timboliu has had no idea of how to organize wiki content. The page was important, historically, because it showed Timboliu's response to Romaine's custodial candidacy.
Since it had not been deleted when the time for review passed, I removed Template:Weg from it, and also the Dutch Wikiversity category, and moved it to user space. I also created a copy, because I suspected could happen what did, in fact, happen, the copy is at User:Abd/Plan 2014. That kind of move is commonly used on en.wikiversity to avoid conflict. I requested that the redirect created from the move be deleted, which was promptly done, so the original deletion discussion showed a red link, there was no longer a page at that location.
So what happened? Romaine moved the page back to mainspace and then deleted it. Why? I know why, and it's the same reason that he revert warred with me on this talk page, and why he protected my talk page archive into his preferred version, and, indeed, why he has now filed a monster complaint on Babel. I've seen this all before. The usual end, if this keeps up, is that the sysop loses his bit. If you care about Romaine, suggest that he calm down!
Personally, I don't care, because if he's going to be an abusive sysop, it's better that he demonstrates it quickly, as he's been managing so far.
Nevertheless, my strong preference is that he simply starts working on improving the Dutch Wikiversity. There is nothing impeding that from what I've done and requested, beyond his crazy demand that everything be seen as completely right and fully proper and anyone constructively criticizing anything -- which starts with recognizing the extant situation -- is a troll and should go away. This Babel post will make him look like a complete idiot. I've been totally surprised by his style of argument and intense reactivity, it's unusual in someone with as much experience as him. Yet, it happens. And my notifications just lit up. He surpasses all expectation. He's reverted my brief response on Babel. He apparently has no idea what a live wire he's touching. Erkan Yilmaz has been asking me to stop responding to him, and I've been attempting to do that, confining myself to what was minimally necessary to close out affairs here. Erkan also asked him to do the same, and he's completely disregarding it. Erkan is an experienced Wikiversity sysop. Vogone, another sysop here, has confirmed what I was asserting about my right to remove content from my user talk page. The Banner, help him out!--Abd (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
At your request: block request for Abd. The Banner talk 21:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not going to help him out, it might just push him over the cliff. What I wrote about you on that page was very mild, compared to what he'd written about me, here and elsewhere. I did not in any way attempt to make you unwelcome here, and you are, in fact, welcome. He has been trying to exclude me from Beta. I recommend you withdraw that. Your choice. I really don't care. Communities will do what they will do. Since this is becoming a cross-wiki issue though, I may bring this up on en.wikiversity. If you love drama, carry on! --Abd (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, threats leave me absolutely cold. The Banner talk 21:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a threat, The Banner. I won't do anything but respond as I respond, normally, and usually, and predictably. I have no buttons to push to block anyone, I have no 'crat bit on this wiki, and I don't have some magic influence over others, nor do I want these. The power here is in the community, not with me. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your plans[edit]

Hi Abd!

What is your plan now? Do you still have some points to make or are you done for now? Romaine claims on the request for custodian action page that you being unblocked is the only problem left. Would you mind if I blocked you for a week or so to prove that claim? I would do anything which helps to calm this down and would warmly welcome your input. Vogone (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Would I mind? Yes. The reason is that a block would later be used as "proof" that I did something wrong. Did I? If so, I'd appreciate a clear warning!
However, I would not mind an interaction ban, particularly if it's evenly applied. There are no remaining "points" to be made, beyond this:
  • I have the right to control my user talk page content, provided I do not alter the comments of others. I may remove them. The same applies to my talk page archive. I think that The Banner may finally have suggested to Romaine what I'd asked of him, i.e., tell him to calm down! (There may be nothing more to do about this, assuming Romaine has stopped poking my talk page.)
  • The page that Romaine just deleted from my user space should be restored. He deleted this without any community request, while clearly being involved. I've requested he undelete it, because he should be given a chance to fix that himself. It's not a demand, but ... if he fixes it, it becomes less of a claim against him in possible later process.
  • Romaine should be cautioned about using his tools while involved. Given his wide experience, I'm astonished that he doesn't seem to understand the importance of this.
  • The comments I made on Babel should be restored, or at least linked from Babel. Basically, if Romaine is allowed to file such a massive laundry list of my "errors" or allegedly bad faith actions, I should be allowed at least a brief response, or a link to a response.
  • He should also be informed that he's not allowed to unlaterally declare a ban from Beta, as he's been doing on Babel and elsewhere, while he is clearly involved.
You have the right as a neutral custodian to declare any kind of behavioral ban, my opinion. That's basic, fundamental, wiki practice. It doesn't have to be "right." If I violate such a ban, without appealing to the community, and gaining permission -- nondisruptively --, you have the right to block me (at least a short block!). Without a violated warning, my opinion, a block is abusive. And thanks, very much thanks, for asking. I appreciate it. --Abd (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Romaine was not misusing his tools. And I am surprised that you go on and on with kicking against Romaine like he is evil himself. Yes, I have asked Romaine to calm down. But only to prevent that you go out of control in a victory dance on his grave when he is blocked. The Banner talk 01:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No blocks have been requested here except by Romaine and you (and with a support from another). Obviously, you must realize that there is a risk he could be blocked. Thanks for getting that and suggesting that he stop. What is a more real possibility would be that he's desysopped, and if a sysop is doing things that are blockable, then desysopping is easier to obtain than a block.
So let me continue to encourage you to restrain your friend, as I did before you filed the block request, and which suggestion you actually based that request on. You don't help by claiming that I think he is "evil himself." I don't. I noted elsewhere that you seem to have a disruptive history, and stirring the pot could be exactly what that would indicate. But you did, in fact, suggest he be careful. Maybe you should emphasize that a little more. He still doesn't quite get it. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Beside that, you are making a lot of fuss about that deleted article. I hope that you do not mind that I point you to your own article User:Abd/Beta issues/Plan 2014, what is nothing more than a copy of the article you want to have restored. So you are playing games, mr. Abd! The Banner talk 01:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
A working link for the page is [2]. --Abd (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Look at the time of that page creation (01:29, 23 August 2014‎). I requested that the page be undeleted here for exactly what I said I was requesting it for, on the RCA page, to give him a chance to undo a blatant recusal failure. I didn't need it restored for the content, obviously, because I saved that content off-wiki. Rather, it's an important page for the history of this affair, and I'd already referred to it in places. It should be publicly visible. No games. That page was created after Romaine refused to undelete.
Interesting that you found it so quickly, before I came here and mentioned it. Cross-wiki stalking, eh? I don't particularly mind, I just notice things like that.
He could still decide to undelete here, in which case I'd have that enwv page speedy deleted. It would remove, at least partially, one particular complaint that could be part of a desysop review. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
So the only thing you do is a continued kicking against Romaine because he did something you did not like. And you keep your undelete request standing, even now is proven that you have the page already. Have you any idea how disruptive your behaviour is? Because your little battle with Romaine, you prevent me of doing what has to be done: content creation. The Banner talk 09:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No. There is no more use for this discussion. Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Block_abusive_editor_Abd was hostile and disruptive, stirring the pot, and you continue to stir here. Unless you have something actually useful to say, please stay off this Talk page. Absent further provocation, I will wait a week (as roughly suggested by Vogone) and see if anything still needs to be done here. If I have time, I will work on en.wikiversity to study the events here as they relate to overall Wikiversity policy, and my intention would be to then bring the results back here or to meta for community review, possibly an RfC. --Abd (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

IRC?[edit]

Where did our discussion about the topic IRC go? I see you dictating "wiki-morality" to all experienced users here, but I also see you reverting edits you don't like, deleting discussions within 24 hours, and calling everybody names here ... If you are really here to co-operate, I would like to see cooperation from you in the first place. I'm getting the idea that you're a trol, please prove me that I'm wrong! Edoderoo (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

https://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Abd/Archive#IRC.3F This was fast-archived because of revert warring here. It worked. If you wish to bring up something useful from that, you may; however I'm not encouraged by a request that I prove I'm not a troll. Perhaps you go first. Prove you are not a troll. Okay? Any questions? --Abd (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I was responding from a mobile phone, not always the easiest for writing. Some more response to add:

  • wiki-morality. This is my analysis:
  • I don't believe in "morality" as a guide for behavior. I have described what happened, as I saw it, often without a judgment that it was right or wrong. However, those with strong ideas about wiki-morality, and inclined to assume that others are judging them, saw these as moralistic. I often describe "common wiki practice." That is not necessarily a claim that "common practice" is right or wrong.
  • Sometimes I have stated that an action violates a policy or principle. Again, that does not mean that the action was right or wrong, but it may mean that it will be seen so by some. Policy, in fact, it's well-understood, can be defective or incomplete or even, in some sense, "wrong." For me, the issue is two-fold: what most benefits the project, long-term, or, similarly, prevents harm, and, then, on a higher level, what benefits humanity?
  • That is, we need not forget that the projects themselves exist for a higher purpose, and I'd rather not lose sight of that purpose, simply pursuing the detail of one specific project. There is, still, no "morality" there. If you disagree, pointing to a statement that shows what you call "wiki-morality" could be helpful. Perhaps I erred in my expression, perhaps I've erred more deeply or have some misunderstanding of fact, or perhaps, Edoderoo, you have not understood me.
  • Dictating ... to all experienced users here. when it's useful, I assess the experience of users primarily by their behavior, and what I've seen here is not typical of mature users, far from it. There are other measures: I can look at edit counts cross-wiki, I can look at block logs and the number, character, and recency of blocks, I can look at "hats" collected, all of which are indications, but none of them are definitive in themselves.
  • It would appear, Edoderoo, that you are judging by what happened here in the last week or so. Okay, who are the "experienced users"? I will compile a list at User:Abd/Dutch Wikiversity deletion affair/List of participants. I prefer to wait to see actual evidence before coming to any conclusions, because if I base my opinions on casual impressions, as is often the case for Wikimedians, I find I often err. We form casual impressions out of the reactive brain, the amygdala, often, and these impressions are highly affected by our emotional responses, whether we think we or friends are being attacked, etc. So thanks for asking, I'll compile that page.
  • reverting edits you don't like. Actually, you are describing someone else's behavior, not mine, with one narrow exception, well-established in wiki traditions on all the wikis where I've been seriously active (en.wiki, en.wv, beta.wv, meta): when I conclude that there is no value in continued discussion with a user, I may revert that user's comments on my talk page, rather than responding to them or leaving them without response. (This is formal guideline on en.wiki, see Removal of comments, notices, and warnings and see .)Such a reversion acknowledges seeing the edit. When a user revert wars with me on my own Talk page, I formally request they stop posting to it. (See NOBAN.) That's my right. See However, there is a user who has been reverting my posts to Babel. Does that concern you? If not, why not?
  • Deleting discussions within 24 hours. Again, that would be here, and only once. I've seen this from editors with an axe to grind: a single instance of something is made plural, to imply a habit or pattern. I would not normally do that, however, there was revert warring on my page, insistent. I could have requested custodian action over that, but I always try to find other solutions first. I archived my talk page, in toto, and then explained it, which can be seen above, and there is a link to the archive page. Again, in the wiki traditions I am familiar with, users have the right to curate their own Talk page, and I've seen plenty of admnistrators and others who simply delete old talk, and sometimes fresh comments. It is not required to archive it at all, I could actually delete the whole thing, and requests from users to sysops to delete their talk page are often granted. (I disagree with that, by the way, it covers up history that can become important to understand.)
  • Calling everybody names here. Examples? I don't know if you are Dutch or not, but if I called you "Dutch," would that be "calling you a name"? How about if I call you a "Wikipedian?" Or a "Dutch Wikipedian?" I see that you have 47686 contributions on nlwiki, and are a sysop there. Does that qualify you as a "Wikipedian"? I see 23 contributions to beta.wikiversity. I would not yet call you a "Wikiversitan." But you are starting to participate, and we encourage that. You are welcome here, and would be on en.wikiversity.
  • If I have called people names, what names? Where? I can go back and strike edits or words if there is a problem, but vague assertions accomplish nothing. --Abd (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • To start with my 21 edits. I looked in your last 500 here. In may, june and july there were no edits. In August there were a lot of edits, but they had nothing to do with Wikiversity. So you're not better then me in that point of view. Therefor I don't think that you are the person to dictate me what I should do or not do. Neither are you the person to judge should we raise a statue for Timboliu, or should we delete the articles that do not fit into any learning project. You've said yourself that you don't speak any Dutch. I would go to the Polish wikiversity to tell other people that they should not delete pages, I wouldn't even do that on the German one, though I speak that language rather well. Your contributions here do not prove to be to build a Dutch Wikiversity until now. They are there because you feel compassion with Timboliu, for whatever the reason is. Right now (and the situation is almost 2 years like that) no other contributors from the Dutch Wikimedia community want or are able to cooperate or continue on the work of Timboliu. Actually, in most cases I recall, I would say want AND are able. Timboliu wants really hard, maybe even too hard, but it needs something to break before we can go a step further. Cleaning up of copyvio, commerical content, and other content that does not lead to a learning module (there will never be a course "who works in the office of Wikimedia Nederland, Utrecht", neither will there be a course "which oneliners where on news site http://www.nu.nl/ in October 2012". Such pages were nominated for deletion, and then you came along and demanded that we should never delete them, and you brought it in a way that we all four/five users only came here to bully Timboliu. And your tone was one like "I am the most experienced user here, and if I say so, it be so". But I'm afraid I will never listen to you again, ever. Why would I? You are blocked indefinitely on :en (user The Banner was put in a bad light because of his block log book, so I'll feel free to do the same for you). And now when I look further, I can't find any real contributions on Wikiversity either. From now on I will only react on Dutch language pages, in Dutch language, because our goal is to get a Dutch Wikiversity somehow. Small, like the Dutch wikibooks, but it would be nice to have it. All your input the last few days didn't get us any closer to our goal, on the contrary. Above you said that I might be a troll, you wasn't sure. You know, it doesn't even matter. Edoderoo (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, Edoderoo, I'm a long-term Wikiversitan, most of my regular activity is on en.wikiversity. I'm starting to think that there is indeed a language problem, because you keep saying things that I supposedly said that I didn't say and certainly don't agree with mean. As an example, I did not say that you might be a troll. Maybe you could re-read it! You told me you were "getting the idea" that I was a troll, and you asked to prove I wasn't. That was actually an accusation of being a troll, though veiled, indirect. I then asked you to go first, prove you were not a troll. I was pointing out that it's really impossible, except by communicating honestly and without blame, but attempting to share ideas and understandings. Trolls don't do that. Unfortunately, you did not demonstrate non-trollness.
Trolls make provocative statements with the purpose of creating upset. I don't do that. But I do say what I think, which can sometimes, if I'm not careful, do that. But the upset is not my purpose, so, again, not a troll. The matter is more complicated than this and I doubt you would understand the full story. Ask, though, if you are ever able to get that I'm 70 years old, have almost 30 years of experience with on-line conferencing and on-line group process, I'm internationally known for my work with community structure and process, I work with scientists routinely, I have seven children and grandchildren and have dealt with severe family issues with high success, I'm highly trained in ontology and certain kinds of communication, and I'm still learning, all the time. If you are ever interested in having a frank and open conversation with someone like that, let me know. Otherwise you are basically Randy from Boise, with the right to edit and damage the wiki until someone figures out what is happening and stops you. Which can take years.
Yes, I'm blocked on en.wikipedia. The Banner is blocked on nl.wikipedia, recently and recently on en.wiki as well (though not at the moment). Does that put him in a bad light? Why? When I wrote that about him, I explicitly said it wasn't necessarily bad. However, seeing what he's done, now, I can see why he'd be blocked; that is, if he behaved there like he behaved here, he'd be blocked, there is no question! (With what Romaine has done, he'd be looking at an RfC leading to an ArbCom case if he didn't resign the bit.)
My block on enwiki was years ago, and I've never appealed, and it was not at all over behavior like this, it was certainly not about "personal attack," because I was known as particularly civil, on-wiki. I once called a high-level functionary, on Wikipedia Review, a "fat asshole." It was incredibly funny. He took that to the Arbitration Committee, imagining that they would, of course, immediately block me.
I'm pretty sure I know what actually happened. They laughed. They were rolling on the floor laughing. He was fat, a former arbitrator, and he seemed to believe that he owned the project, and he threw his weight around, liberally. So, fat, asshole. Somebody told him! OMG! Of course I wasn't sanctioned for that. It was off-wiki, standard policy, no harassment or stalking or legal threats, etc. Without his taking it there, this never would have been said on Wikipedia.
I did not take two cases successfully through ArbCom by being uncivil. I know how to request unban, but I don't want to edit wikipedia, because it involves dealing with too many people who argue endlessly without seeking consensus, and building content on Wikipedia is like pushing the boulder up the hill. It rolls down again. It is far, far too much work for too little result, following far too many constraints. Wikiversities generally are not like that. We can just right. And, with experience, we also are organized, so that what we write builds useful content as well.
Except you just made Beta like that. And that is a very serious problem, which I fully intend to address, within what maintaining order here requires. I create community discussions, Edoderoo, I know how to do it and I know how to make them successful, usually. This is my talk page, my writing here is different.
Now, I've said this to others. 'If you have something useful to say, you remain welcome to comment here. But more posts like that above will just be reverted.
One more point. I don't create mainspace content here, because my strongest language is English, and I don't write in any other language well enough to be a content creator. But I do wikignome (i.e., some level of RCP here, or finding link errors, etc.) and work on policy issues, cross-wiki.
What I'm very, very familiar with, as much as anyone else on the planet, is how Wikiversities can work with far lower levels of conflict than is routine where Wikipedians -- who are not also experienced Wikiversitans -- are involved. When you and the "Dutch community" -- which somehow seems to exclude Timboliu, it's being claimed that the "entire Dutch community" wants me to leave came here, regardless of intention, your action was to trash three years of work, without any attempt to allow him to sort it, improve it, and, yes, agree to delete it.
You had no experience in what can actually be a Wikiversity resource. You had no idea of "learning projects," which can start with very little content, but an idea about educational research.
You cite pages with content that was, in fact, ridiculous for mainspace. But could Timboliu make notes in his user space? The standard Wikiversity answer is, Yes. So the main issue with Timboliu content was not so much that it existed, but that it was very poorly organized. He would readily have agreed (and did agree) to deletion of much of it, if engaged in a discussion that respected what was acceptable of what he wanted to do. The way you treated him, regardless of your intentions, was atrocious. No user should be treated that way. He was accused, for example, of a whole series of violations, and the process was not to explain to him a problem and then help him to fix it, but to blame him and accuse him. Users respond to supportive education about the requirements of the wiki. But ... you, as a group, had no wikiversity experience. You came in with very strong ideas of what was good content and what was not *and imposed it.* With no compassion.
So, now, you have the opportunity to create some content. I will review the deleted material at leisure. I have the XML from Timobliu; I don't know yet if he saved the revision history. If not, I may again request restoral to my user space, that is totally legitimate, even if unusual because of the large number of pages involved. A custodian will do it or not. I've deliberately avoided applying again for custodianship.
We are establishing precedents here, Edoderoo. That's the work I do. You are only thinking of contributions as "content." That's a very Wikipedian thing. To get some credibility on en.wiki, I did RCP for hours. However, my interest from the beginning was social structure, governance, how large numbers of people can communicate, cooperate, coordinate. Wikipedia is one of the largest experiments in that, but it has largely forgotten it was an experiment, and instead thinks of itself as a fixed and established and successful thing, highly conservative.
It is unreliable and highly inefficient, it burns out the most experienced users.
No, this is where I work, and I'm not about to be driven away by all the blame dumped on my talk page or on Babel or on RCA, and all that is redounding to the detriment of those who keep crying "personal attack." If you want to support those users, suggest that they do just what you said you will do: stay on the Dutch pages. However, I am a WMF user and I have the *right* to participate on any WMF wiki. You have zero right to exclude me, and I do have a tendency to walk into places that try to exclude me, to see what happens. You want to keep "strangers" out, put up a No Trespassing sign. And then we will see if the Owner allows that. --Abd (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
One more point. CentralAuth shows over 500 edits. As I mentioned, I don't create content here, because I create content in English. To compare, one needs to look at en.wikiversity. CA shows 12,052 edits. My edit count can be misleading, because I tend to write long posts, detailed discussions, etc. However, I also have, on en.wikiversity, from when I was a custodian, 90 blocks/unblocks, 600 page deletions. My requests and actions are almost always confirmed, because I request what the community wants. I also do substantial process work on en.wikiversity. --Abd (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)