User talk:Abd

Confirming that I am enwiki user Abd requesting rename of User:Abd.en to User:Abd, with usurpation of the latter account. --Abd.en (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikibooks, Abd!  First steps tutorial Wikibooks is for freely-licensed collaboratively-developed textbooks. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing and assume good faith about the intentions of others. Remember, this is a wiki, so you're allowed to change just about anything, and changes can be made easily. Come introduce yourself to everyone, and let us know what interests you.

If you're coming here from other Wikimedia projects, you should read our primer for Wikimedians to get quickly up-to-speed.  Getting help  Goodies, tips and tricks  Made a mistake? Thanks, Adrignola talk contribs 23:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC) (P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)
 * See the Wikibooks help pages for common issues, or read Using Wikibooks for a more user-friendly introduction to the project.
 * Remember, every edit is saved, so if you make mistakes, you can revert to an earlier version if needed.
 * Get help from the community in the user assistance room or in our IRC channel.
 * Files must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, unless they are copyrighted and need to be uploaded here under fair use. If you need to upload a fair use file, you may request permission to do so. Please be sure to provide the required : a license tag and source are always required; fair use images require a.
 * Please fill in the edit summary and preview your edits before saving.
 * Sign your name on discussion pages by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;
 * User scripts can make many tasks easier. Look at the Gadgets tab of my preferences; check off the boxes for the scripts you want, and hit save!
 * Please make sure you follow our naming policy - modules should be named like.
 * Need to rename a page? Use the move tab (only becomes available once your account is 4 days old - until then, ask for help).
 * To get a page deleted, add to the top of the page.
 * If something you wrote was deleted, please read the deletion policy, and check the deletion log to find out why. Also check the RFD archives if applicable. You can request undeletion at WB:RFU, or ask the administrator who deleted the page.

"disruptive criticism"
In a few days we should extend the discussion to cover further steps. For instance how you define "disruptive criticism" ? (criticism is the expression of unfavorable opinion(s) on some event(s), the way criticism is taken depends mostly on the openness of the target of the critic, especially in written form, where the "tone" can easily be misinterpreted). --Panic (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing or pushing any particular definition of "disruptive criticism." The user in question is well-known as a critic of the WikiMedia Foundation, and of specific personalities involved, calling attention to and documenting alleged ethical failures. However, there would be a sign that criticism is disruptive, and that is that actual disruption is caused, i.e., incivility, calls for blocks, tenacious argument back and forth, etc. That doesn't mean that the criticism is improper, but that it is causing or triggering a problem. The "problem" is, as you hint at, not only with the critic but with someone objecting or reacting to criticism. Hence I'm suggesting that a few users here monitor this account. If disruption is being caused, the user would be asked to cease pushing any disruptive position here, outside of confined and civil and careful discussion, while some consensus is sought, with community advice, on how to proceed. The user should not use Wikibooks as a safe harbor from which to launch attacks on the WMF, other WMF wikis, or users, or anyone, for that matter, even if they are in some sense justified.


 * However, it could arise that there would be some occasion here to properly make critical remarks, and the key to avoiding cross-wiki disruption would be to address a developing situation promptly. The user should not be accused of deliberate disruption ("trolling"!) but should be asked to stop, pending community advice, whatever might be cross-wiki controversial, until and unless there is a place here specifically appropriate for that. For example, someone could theoretically write a textbook about wiki ethics. What standards would apply to that? Could it document, for example, specific case histories with diffs? I'm not hastening to answer that question!


 * On Wikiversity, where similar things might happen with an educational resource or class, I'm suggesting that ethical guidelines be drafted and followed first, before diving deeply into what could, again, be controversial. Or, alternatively, to to proceed slowly and carefully, without having detailed guidelines, and come to a screeching halt if there is complaint, backing up, and then building consensus on each step.


 * In other words, if there is no problem, there is no problem. If there is a problem, support should be given so that it does not get out of hand. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, the "disruption" may would depend on making critics out of context and scope of discussions. He hasn't never done so here, preemptively admonishing him may be counterproductive as there may be occasions that pertinent information will not be provided because of a fear of retaliations even more if it is formalized in a policy or decision that directly targets the user. --Panic (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The procedure would be to politely request that he avoid creating disruption. He's very sophisticated, he'll understand, I believe.


 * I see that all hell has broken loose at the Reading Room. This was totally unanticipated by me, and this is definitely not Thekohser's doing. My condolences. I suggest addressing this very carefully and slowly. Don't take any steps that are not on solid ground. If necessary, there are open channels to the WMF and the Board, and to Jimbo himself, but let's not go there if it is not necessary. I'd think that nobody wants a repeat of what happened in March at Wikiversity, and that then resulted in Jimbo resigning his ability to do local blocks as Founder, and other similar intrusive tools, such as page deletion. Mike is here asserting himself much as Jimbo did in March, and, very definitely, that was not supported then and I don't see why it would be now. Were there some urgent situation, the matter would be different. But there is not. If Thekohser is unblocked, that, in itself, can cause very little damage, if any. It's a wiki, after all.


 * I've long ago lost all fear of retaliations, and not being an admin myself nor having an interest in any of the special political functions provides some clear relativistic clearness on my actions and in any retaliation. I do agree that Mike is disrupting a process that would have been closed and well addressed. It seems that he is acting not by principles or by our rules by what seems a special feud with the user. In fact he is usurping the community tools to proceed and enforce his personal goals (clearly not the goals of the community as no support has been given, especial note that the steward that made the first block and was contacted also decided not to defend it). --Panic (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He's risking a lot for practically no gain. I've seen this happen with long-term volunteers when they are burning out. They become uncivil, dominating, and incapable of understanding that they are not the project. I've been hearing this about Mike for some time. The WMF machinery moves very slowly... but it does move. --Abd (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I can hear you. While I appreciate your concern, Abd, I'm neither burning out nor risking a lot. Thekohser simply isn't welcome on any WMF wiki. –  03:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets give it some hours to see if he understands his position in this and doesn't force more drastic measures nor causes other damages to the project. --Panic (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll just ask Mike one thing: if users on WMF wikis want to welcome someone, who are you to say he "simply isn't welcome"? There is a lost performative there. Not welcome according to whom? Who decides who is welcome and who is not, on each wiki? The Governor? Anyway, Panic, this is your problem, here, I'm working on Wikiversity. I hope Mike doesn't try this trick there. --Abd (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
No doubt some people have told you that you can write a tome. That makes Wikibooks a perfect fit. What other project is entirely designed around writing... tomes? You may be interested in Wikipedia or Wikimedia. If those are too close to home, I believe you also mentioned you worked with groups of people. Then maybe you'd want to look at Subject:Sociology. Or you can start a new book entirely. It's up to you. – Adrignola talk 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I first need to get a Round Tuit? Know where I can find one? Thanks. I've been a bit discouraged by the apparent Original Research requirements, etc. All real books, other than textbooks written by experts in the field, and even them, typically, include original research in the sense of new writing explaining something, sometimes without references. That's fine on Wikiversity. What's the situation here? What if I write in a field where I am familiar, and what I know is controversial among those who know less, or among some experts? In my own writing, I would certainly note the controversy, and would attempt to neutrally present it, but ... I got site-banned on Wikipedia for three months, with a topic ban for a year, for doing less, just trying to put what was in reliable secondary sources into Cold fusion, with opposition from people who don't know the sources but who certainly have strong opinions! (Cold fusion is a pretty unusual field, where those who have followed the literature and know the sources, and the whole history of the research, hold opinions that are still quite different from many scientists, especially those who dismissed CF as bogus twenty years ago, when practically nothing was known about it except a little experimental evidence, and who literally refuse to look at anything new. That evidence eventually became overwhelming that some kind of nuclear reaction was indeed taking place. There is no proof as to what it is, exactly, it probably isn't "ordinary fusion," though there are some pretty good theories now. And the ash was found, and is next to conclusively proven. It's an exciting field, I discovered it when noticing an abusive blacklisting on Wikipedia, which led me to ... a huge can of worms. Including Mike.lifeguard, my first contact with him. And a business. And I'll be mentioned in Naturwissenschaften this year, it seems, a review paper from a scientist has been accepted, and I assisted him with editing, which is amazing for me, given that, while I was trained in physics, I never worked in it. NW is the journal where Einstein published. --Abd (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As reputable as it might make us, we aren't sticklers for references for every page of a book, much less every sentence (it seems) like at Wikipedia. People are still free to tag things with fact or nominate a book for deletion, but with fewer people here, there's less conflict over ideas.  As long as the concepts are reasonable, presented with a neutral point of view, and (optimally/optionally) provide references, there should be no problems.  Original research is a draft; WB:OR is our only approved definition.  Information published in peer-reviewed journals is good.  If people can do a "Google test", even better. – Adrignola talk 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conf.)
 * Why not approach the subject of Cold fusion from a historical perspective (that would be interesting), then you can explore and comment on most theories in a balanced way and it would be withing reason to speculate on the future (it would also be fun to cover or reference the SiFi and movies coverage of the subject). There are approaches that would bypass the prejudice we have on original research, you will only get into problems if you make innovative concepts and ideas the core of the work, or present them as irrefutable facts. --Panic (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good ideas. I have a pile of books here, some academically published, some published by specialist publishers, with the history, which is an amazing story. (I bought these books to learn about the field so I could intelligently edit the Wikipedia article. I started as a skeptic, only a little more than a year ago. Then I read the literature, including the skeptical literature -- which is, by the way, all very old. There is only one recent skeptical paper, published in a relatively minor journal, but under peer review, I've read a draft, and it is really, really bad. And it is really just an answer to a positive paper published there, and it was just co-published with rebuttals from the scientists in the field. (The original paper was written by Steve Krivit, a journalist.)
 * Can you imagine a Fringe Science field, with three Nobel laureates, experts in physics, supporting it? How in the world did that happen? How did a discovery that took expert electrochemists five years to find and satisfy themselves that it existed, with a cell required to run for months before the effect would show up, and they were not at all ready to announce, it was forced by university legal, end up being rejected through experiments that only ran for a few weeks, before the details of the original work had been published? (And, by the way, another historical detail. Pons and Fleischmann, when they ran out of their original palladium and got a new batch, could not reproduce their own work. There are so many clues in that I don't know where to start. Eventually, they (and) others figured out how palladium could be processed to get decent results, it has to do with nanostructure, but that whole approach is probably bankrupt, the effect is way too fragile in that environment. And I could go on and on.
 * Adrignola, thanks. Maybe I'll toss up an outline. But not today. --Abd (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

NY Times article of interest: Your Brain on Computers
From this week's NY Times...

Your Brain on Computers: Outdoors and Out of Reach, Studying the Brain

Excerpt:

"Todd Braver, a psychology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, was one of five neuroscientists on an unusual journey. They spent a week in late May in this remote area of southern Utah, rafting the San Juan River, camping on the soft banks and hiking the tributary canyons.

It was a primitive trip with a sophisticated goal: to understand how heavy use of digital devices and other technology changes how we think and behave, and how a retreat into nature might reverse those effects.

The trip’s organizer, David Strayer, a psychology professor at the University of Utah, says that studying what happens when we step away from our devices and rest our brains — in particular, how attention, memory and learning are affected — is important science.

“Attention is the holy grail,” Mr. Strayer says.

“Everything that you’re conscious of, everything you let in, everything you remember and you forget, depends on it.”

Echoing other researchers, Mr. Strayer says that understanding how attention works could help in the treatment of a host of maladies, like attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia and depression. And he says that on a day-to-day basis, too much digital stimulation can “take people who would be functioning O.K. and put them in a range where they’re not psychologically healthy.”"

Moulton (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. You are always welcome on this page. As to elsewhere on this wiki, I don't yet have an opinion! I suppose it is up to everyone else. You've seen the work done with Thekohser, still to be completed by others here (and not so much my business yet). It will be harder with you, probably, but ... I suspect there is a way that wide consensus can be found as to when and how you can participate. Everywhere? Well, would I want a professional theater group to be performing everywhere? Or a brilliant professor to be speaking everywhere? No. No matter how good they were! --Abd (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Alphabet/Greek/EL5
Oddly enough, someone just created that page with 'abd'. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not I. --Abd (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, it was created by an IP contributor. I only thought it was an odd coincidence.

Collapsing
If you need to collapse a section of text, please have a look at Category:Collapse templates and pick your pleasure. – Adrignola talk 12:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the vote...
I don't object to the changes but wish to make my position clear as to avoid any future divergence on an issue that is secondary. I didn't take a clear position on the vote (I did indicate it without a vote) not because of the format but because of the effects it has on the community and the limited conclusion and consequences it can bring to the issue, at best it can be read as response to the question raised by the promoter. In that regard I do object to your words "The character of this !vote will be considered if there is a community decision coming out of this process." (in that context, you are referring to the vote) as no one but Thekohser should use that process to validate any action (or need to), if it is used to validate anything else it will be an error. I also advise you, if you have the time, to work on the block policy draft. The issue runs parallel and will probability open avenues of dialog in a way that it avoids dealing with a specific case. --Panic (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was referring specifically to the comment by Moulton, i.e., that Moulton's status would surely be considered if it was important to do so. I will look at the block policy draft.
 * Please understand that I have a view of wiki decision-making that considers that decisions aren't made, strictly speaking, by the community; rather the community advises those who decide. Those decide who have the ability to act, and who choose to act. Strictly speaking, the advice isn't binding, but those who decide against clear community consensus had better have good reasons, or they can end up losing their executive privileges, because the community may then advise others who will listen.
 * So "!voting" doesn't actually make any decisions, and vote counts are only indications. But they can be useful ones. As to blocking, only sysops can block, but if everyone but the sysops were to say "Block!" and no sysop was willing to act, the "community" couldn't block. Conversely, as you know, if most in the community say "Unblock!" but no sysop is willing to act, the community, again, cannot unblock. This latter situation is pretty much what Wikibooks is in now, but the polling is setting up conditions to provide cover for unblocking, that might otherwise be considered wheel-warring. There was pretty much no other way, I haven't seen any suggestions from you that would have been better.
 * I think your position is incorrect. Thekohser is blocked. It's purely a technical state. We can say, you can say, that he is not banned. But blocked he is, until someone with the tools changes the setting on his account. You may not recognize the legitimacy of this, but without executive power, that's meaningless. What impresses those who do have the executive power, at meta, more than anything, is numbers in a local poll. Again, you may think that improper, foolish, or whatever, but there is a reason why they want to see certain numbers in a poll on setting the bureaucrat bit, or checkuser, or the like. Or unsetting them.
 * Those at meta who might need to make some decision, ultimately, whether it turns out to be needed in this case, do not want to follow long discussions and weigh complex arguments. They want, and need, for it to be simple. If they can look and see a consensus, they will almost certainly follow it. If they see a monster discussion with no clear resolution or obvious balance, they may not even read it. That's why this poll was needed. And that's why I've been acting to try to keep it clean and clear, not always with support. I can only do so much, by myself, I am, in the end, a servant, I'm not in charge. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * A side note. The long discussion we had over reconfiguration of settings at Wikibooks was much like this discussion.  It got long and involved and many didn't read it.  Some even saw the consensus building as an effort to drown out those who objected to changes and found people's attempts to question their positions offensive.  Even when we decided on changes, the initial developer who looked at the bug report didn't read the discussion and asked for a link to a plain old vote.  It just so happened that we had the foresight to create such a section and the developer had stopped scrolling before he got to that section.  Therefore, I find your comments about those at Meta wanting things kept simple (for better or worse) to be spot-on because I've seen it to be the case even for developers. – Adrignola talk 02:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Response on decision-making, the use of committees

 * Yes. Trainwreck. But it's not just about meta. It's about ordinary users as well. We all need clarity and simplicity for decision-making. What has happened is that discussion and debate are only half of decision-making. There are classic solutions to this problem.


 * The most obvious one, under Robert's Rules, is referral to a committee. Setting aside the question of how the committee is formed for the moment, a committee engages in whatever process it chooses to come up with a committee report. Such a report, to be a "committee report," must be approved by a majority of the committee. It can present a series of reports. A minority report or reports may be presented. Each report would be signed by those who approve it. The report is, ideally, a summary of the full discussion, a transcript of which may be available, and a good report will make specific recommendations for action (or a recommendation for no action.)


 * The committee has been charged with the task as a result of, first, a presented and seconded motion. And, second, a motion and second and majority approval to refer the matter to a committee.


 * Committees may expand their own scope to consider, for example, alternatives. It is essential that they have control over their own process. In operation, they may solicit or receive comment from non-members, but they will place this in the record, choosing how to incorporate it (or not incorporate it).


 * Members of the full assembly will have opportunity later to object to the report or present further alternatives.


 * But the full assembly will receive a report of the committee, which has been organized to make the issues as clear as possible. If the motion is complex -- as it was in the case you cited, Adrignola -- each detail will have been examined carefully, we can hope, with the report explaining why a final recommendation was the way it was. But in addition to coverage of these details, there will be overall analysis and brief summary.


 * How the community will handle this may depend on how united the committee was in approving the committee report. A unanimous committee report, if the committee was fairly composed, will often be approved with practically no fuss. In a face-to-face meeting, I've seen, it can take a minute or so to receive the report formally, to move adoption of the recommendations, for that to be seconded, debate opened and immediately closed with a two-thirds vote, and then the final approval, sometimes even by a chair acting "without objection." Nobody objects, it's done. You have to be paying attention if you object!


 * Hoping to bypass red tape, the on-line communities generally ignored centuries of experience with deliberative process, a process which includes rigorous protection for minority views. The result has been massive inefficiency and unclarity, and useless debate, with the necessary debate often getting hidden or even prevented.


 * Making decisions by "discussion" works under certain conditions, but it also seriously breaks down if there is no clear process to proceed from the discussion to the actual decision. If everyone has agreed, fine, but what if that hasn't happened? Sometimes it might take years to find complete agreement. Unless, of course, someone blocks those who disagree!


 * In reality, because there is no way to compel any user to do anything, decisions are made by individuals with the privileges necessary to implement the decision. Sometimes that's an ordinary editor, who may point to a discussion, for example, or might just do a thing. Page editing is an example. I've seen lengthy discussion of some proposed change on a Talk page, but it never gets done, and no decision is actually made except for a default "nothing done," which isn't a decision unless so stated.


 * What I'm trying to introduce, here and elsewhere, are elements of classical deliberative process, without crushing the open wiki process; rather, supplementing with order-creating and maintaining structure.


 * Many common errors of consensus organizations have been repeated on the wikis, apparently without any awareness that these are classical problems. For example, making decisions by "consensus," if the decisions are presumed to persist until changed, can lead to minority rule, in situations where the status quo benefits a minority. Because of the serious problems of participation bias in on-wiki discussions, it can even appear that some position is almost unanimous, whereas if the matter actually came before the entire community, that position would be heavily rejected.


 * There are ways to address this; they involve, generally, setting up decision making structure that kicks in when there are disputes not resolvable by small-scale informal discussion. There are a few (relatively feeble) efforts to do this on Wikipedia. For example, RfC structure there, and ArbComm process, are designed to encourage the separation of the presentation of evidence, discussion and debate, and the making of recommendations. However, without neutral clerking by those working to make sure that the issues and arguments are clear, it is all easily subverted. All it takes is a determined faction, a handful of editors, and it can take years to address even serious problems. That Wikipedia process is dysfunctional is widely known and acknowledged by many, from ordinary editors and critics, to high-level functionaries. But doing something about it on Wikipedia is difficult, for reasons that are not difficult to understand.


 * On the smaller wikis, the process is closer to the original ideals, at least sometimes. And so it may be more possible to introduce elements to heal the dysfunction. It's still difficult, one or two users who are determined to keep things just the way they are, because they are comfortable with that, and especially if they have privileged tools, can slow down the reform process, or maybe even stop it. In the end, though, they are cutting off the limb they are sitting on, because dysfunctional process, sooner or later, burns out everyone. It may look good to them now, but give it a few years, when they realize they have been rolling the same boulder up the hill, watching it roll down. Or be pushed down. You can see this in the history of some -- too many -- Wikipedia administrators. After a time they become progressively impatient and uncivil, until they finally flame out. It's not really their fault, it is a product of system dysfunction. These often become, later, bitter critics. They worked so hard, and then the community spat them out.


 * So, how to compose a committee? Absent a representative assembly -- it's possible to create one without any ordinary "elections," that is nevertheless fully representative, committees can be self-appointed, but the process should result, in a defined time, in definite committee composition. This committee can then set its own rules, and it can under some conditions expel a member for disruption; that ought to take a two-thirds vote. The committee can meet on or off-wiki, but if it meets off-wiki to come up with recommended action, a transcript of that should be available to the public. It's important for transparency. Once there is definite composition, the committee can operate informally, seeking consensus, and, as mentioned, consensus is powerful, what members can all -- or nearly all -- agree upon may be implemented with little fuss. The project can set some default rules for committee process, but committees should be ultimately self-governed, and the rules would really only cover the committee report itself. My own conclusion about the consensus vs. majority rule issue is that majority rule is essential for efficient process, but that consensus is always desirable, and that function is best, overall, when both the right of the majority to make a decision, and the right of a minority to be fully heard and considered, are respected. Under Robert's Rules, it takes a two-thirds vote to close debate and proceed to a final decision, and that is a very substantial protection for minorities against being stampeded by a mere majority.


 * I've experimented a little with on-wiki moderated process, i.e., "chaired." I've done it in my user space, where I have a default right to structure and organize my own user pages. This can be a model, a "committee meeting" can be hosted by someone acting as the chair. This is not actually a restriction on the committee members, because they could independently create another "meeting" in another user space. Key, though, is that every such meeting has someone responsible for maintaining order, a defined person. You will see, from me, particularly on Wikiversity, more experimentation with this kind of process, which is a hybrid between a very libertarian "anything goes -- but no coercion" and authoritarian control: "It's in my user space and don't revert war with me here, or I'll ask for you to be blocked." The key is that anyone can do it. The "authority" is only over what's in my space, and that never becomes the sole available place to conduct process like this. (It is conceivable that a committee would fracture over some schism and present factional reports, the overall community would have to sort this out. But it's a waste of time to do this when it's possible to find agreement.)


 * I have never seen careful deliberative process fail to find consensus. I used it to address my first block on Wikipedia, and the result was a major healing, the admin who had practically demanded that I be banned ended up apologizing, and I, in turn, acknowledged what I'd never questioned, his good faith. But it took some doing to get him to that table! He was totally convinced it was a waste of time. So he didn't participate in the process itself, a few others volunteered to examine evidence and comment. And then he was shown the result. In the end, he became a significant ally.


 * It takes a huge amount of work to find true consensus. That's why it must be confined to a relatively small number of direct participants, it is way too much work to lay on the whole community, way too much reading is involved, as well as looking at evidence, etc., not to mention finding and documenting evidence. Because, in fact, the community simply will not take on the job, and if we don't have genuine consensus process in place, decisions get made in a haphazard way, or, worse, being controlled by a faction, the most motivated (which often means the most biased). --Abd (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On blocks and wheel-warring and voting

 * We have a guideline for decision processes and have an established practice on how they are run on Wikibooks, it is not optimal especially in dealing with block situations, and in cases like this recent one, it sadly makes clear that not all Wikibookians are as equal as they have the right expectation to be. Recently we had a block situation regarding the adoption of the new filter tools and changes to the page reviews etc, and after failing to reach a compromise with one Wikibookian (an admin) we at least could reach the consensus that his opposition wouldn't be resolved and that the greater good of the project was server by acknowledging a consensus to pass the resolution, the proper format would have been the user to remove the opposition explicitly but that rarely happens, it is a rare event when someone clearly compromises here, often irreducible block positions are ignored, this often creates the idea and the acceptance of the practice to form a majority decision disregarding any opposition by not properly addressing it or vice versa like the situation where we are at, this cases are often dependent on the maturity of the administration in analyzing the arguments and the will to give the process the necessary time.
 * Our decision process guideline permits other formats, like votes etc but after that recent block situation a general (community) discussion that started as a joke and was "by vote" gathered unanimity against voting, so at present we have a community decision that we shouldn't vote, to me that is binding unless from the start of a process no one objects to the process (that was part of the point I was making) even if I see this recent vote as not a community decision process, even if it is general, because the statement made to initiate it, so in this case voting will be bad (the issue of creating factions) but I have no problem with the format, if the purpose is not subverted. Of course people form conclusions as a result of the process, but it shouldn't used alone to justify any action, it can be part of the argument to act but it will be dangerous to do so as it will nevertheless put us in a wheel-warring, not of only two Wikibookians but of one part of the community against another, that shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing.


 * Thekohser is not blocked because there was no consensus or project rule to back the block, we can admit an admin imposing unilaterally a block but after the community is called to validate it, if consensus is not reached the block should not stand. There is also the issue of precedence for instance if an admin blocks a user by braking a policy (enforcible) a community decision should change/re-validate the policy before determining if the block was correct, in case of a guideline (non-enforcible), the user that made the infringement should be given a chance to explain the reasons before a block is considered. The specific case we are seeking normalization was not a result of a local intervention, but a consequence of a series of mistakes in fact the issue should have been clearly addressed at meta but we are lead to believe that even there they weren't capable of reaching a decision and so the mess was put on our lap.
 * It all depends on the strength of the administration and political will, I've been personally gone trough the same loops so I know what I'm talking about it will take time. The expedient way is to get someone in an equal footing to act as required for the good of the project. Time is always on our side. We are all in charge it is up to us to guarantee that the "all" never gets left out. --Panic (talk) 03:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, Panic, Thekohser is blocked. That's simply a fact. Your argument is that Thekohser is not "community banned." "Should not" is normative, it is not factual. I see that Mike.lifeguard tried to place in Blocking policy the canard that If no administrator is willing to lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. He didn't explain why this needed to be there. I can probably guess.
 * Basically, it is generally considered against policy for a sysop to reverse a "community ban," by unblocking, without getting approval from the community. By setting up a situation where a "community ban" is created without an actual community decision to ban, it can become habit to refer to a user as "community banned." And then no sysop will dare unblock. But, as we can see, this is circular. The condition was "no administrator is willing to lift the block." If that condition prevents any admninistrator from lifting the block, it's circular, self-reinforcing, pretending to a community consensus that may never have existed.
 * In my view, more properly, there is no such thing as a ban. There are only blocks, including indef blocks. Topic bans are another matter, they are basically warnings that if a user edits in an area, a block is considered, by a warning admin, likely to ensue. There is a misunderstanding of community process in considering that an admin cannot unblock without consulting with the community first. Rather, perhaps the community has decided to "ban." That decision requires a close. (I've seen this violated, with much disruption resulting, it was simply said that the ban was obvious from the discussion; but this left nobody responsible for the close, for that decision. And when I examined it closely, it turned out that the charges on which the ban was based were radical misrrepresentations of the history, without evidence being presented. In at least one comment, an experienced administrator had asked for evidence. It wasn't provided. Others !voted and explicitly said, "Assuming that the charges of XXX are true, yes, ban." Nobody ever took responsibility. But, then, one admin chose to convey the news to the hapless user, and when she complained, he said, "Don't blame me, it wasn't my decision." Yes, it was!
 * A closing admin represents the community in handling that case, by default. So an admin wishing to unblock would approach that admin, present reasons, and they would presumably discuss it. If they can agree, done. If not, then it would go to the community if anyone wants to push it. But without a discussion and a closing admin, there is no ban. Only a block that has been set by an admin, with or without discussion and community consensus.
 * If there was no discussion, a reversal by a previously uninvolved admin is not wheel-warring. In the present case, Mike.lifeguard reblocked Thekohser locally to remove Talk page and email access that had been allowed by the original steward blocking. So Mike set a complete block. Adrignola, with discussion and the approval of everyone commenting, first delinked the account and opened up Talk page access to allow Thekohser to negotiate what Pathoschild, the original blocking steward, had clearly intended, a possible local unblock. Then, with no objection appearing except that of Mike, Adrignoloa unblocked. And Mike promptly reblocked, removing all Talk page and email access again. This was clearly wheel-warring, it's not at all doubtful. On Wikipedia, sysops who do this are, at a minimum, reprimanded by ArbComm, and often they lose their tools. It's highly disruptive, particularly when a community is depending on sysops being responsive to consensus, on being servants rather than masters.
 * Adrignola could not unblock without wheel-warring himself. He could, possibly, restore Talk page access, though prudence might suggest that he not do anything except discuss the situation, as if he were an ordinary user. QuiteUnusual has commented, lamenting the situation, but said that he was not willing to "wheel-war" himself. That's a misunderstanding of wheel-warring, though not completely outside how it is sometimes understood. Wheel-warring is like revert warring. It is clearest when it is a return to a state previously established by the same user. QU could unblock without wheel-warring, in my opinion.
 * However, "wheel-warring" is no longer an excuse to avoid action once a community consensus has been shown. Previously there was, and at present, there is still an apparent supermajority approval for unblock. So even Adrignola, my opinion, could unblock. Wheel-warring most clearly refers to action repeating one's own prior action, without establishing community consensus or clear demonstration of over-riding policy behind the action. With consensus, you can do anything. SB_Johnny closed the unblock discussion on Wikiversity, even though he had started the !voting himself, with an expressed opinion. But he had a showing of 75% consensus! And as he commented, blocking requires consensus to block, not the absence of consensus to unblock. The default for all editors is "unblocked," normally, and it takes consensus to reverse that. (Or anticipation of consensus by a sysop; a sysop should never block if the sysop doesn't expect to be supported by community consensus. He or she can err, but not defy consensus.)


 * Now, about Wikibooks decision-making process. It's quite obvious, Panic, that the process is inadequate to deal well with situations like this, and certain assumptions are being made by you that should be questioned. You mention: '' the arguments and the will to give the process the necessary time.
 * Our decision process guideline permits other formats, like votes etc but after that recent block situation a general (community) discussion that started as a joke and was "by vote" gathered unanimity against voting, so at present we have a community decision that we shouldn't vote... No, you don't! Who closed this discussion? Was this incorporated in policy? Even policy isn't absolutely binding, it merely sets strong precedent that can normally'' be relied upon. It seems that you have a rigid concept of "decisions," but a basic rule in jurisprudence is that decisions are only made and only apply to specific cases brought before a court. At that point, those who participated were looking at a train wreck, but there had been a vote, and it was crystal clear, hard to see what the problem was. And in a similar situation, voting would again be used!
 * Does Wikibooks have a "legislative body"? Such bodies do, in fact, set up law that is binding, without necessarily defining the exact applications. I'd say it doesn't: instead the closest thing it has to a legislative process is the ordinary editorial process involved in maintaining the content of policy pages. Given that, when it's appropriate, the community clearly does vote, the conclusion of that discussion would be "voting is evil," not that we don't vote. Further, that is a vague and unapplied statement, and it properly refers to pure decision making based on vote numbers, which, without defined membership of the deciding body, is highly questionable, and isn't, generally, the wiki way, except where a defined body exists (as with ArbComm, on Wikipedia, which, indeed, makes decisions by majority vote.)
 * Here is what is needed, I've described ways to approach this above. First there should be discussion, ideally among a relatively small number of users working on some problem. It's good if most "factions" that might have variant opinions have someone representing them in this small group, but it can be quite informal. This group attempts to find consensus, and to present a consensus proposal. They present this proposal, in a privileged section, that section isn't interrupted by comments and threaded discussion. Then there is public comment. No poll is opened until it is reasonably clear that no more comment is forthcoming. Then, ideally, someone summarizes the arguments on all sides, with opportunity for correction. But that correction is managed to not simply become a new discussion, the goal here is to present a single, coherent, summary of arguments, such that all who argued will say, "Yeah, that's good enough." And if the discussion references the original arguments, and as long as the presentation is reasonably fair, this should not become a matter of contention. If it does, that can, again, be fairly easily handled by reference and even brief "top-level" statement.
 * If someone is really trying to make a matter obscure, or is pursuing some personal agenda, that becomes obvious! Almost never does this behavior continue, in my experience.
 * Then, perhaps with a brief discussion of proposed action(s), a poll is taken. Wider review and voting is solicited. People are asked, before voting, to review the presentation of arguments. But they aren't obligated to do so; nevertheless, the process I've described should make that easy. It is not a matter of reading a monster wall of threaded arguments!
 * Sometimes, if the process has been good, the result will be obvious and no poll will be necessary. Polls are only needed, and should only be used, when difference of opinion on the proposed actions still remains, and especially where an action might be controversial, and subject to later review. And I'd lay out further definitions that would improve efficiency without tromping on the rights of minorities. Voting does not trample on the rights of minorities, ever, that is a very common misunderstanding. What tramples on the rights of minorities is knee-jerk decision making with inadequate deliberation, based solely on vote counts, and then a closer who pretends and takes no personal responsibility for the outcome. "I didn't decide this, the community did!" Nope. We are responsible for our own actions. Period. The community advises; sometimes it advises coherently, sometimes not. Sometimes a majority will vote one way, but the arguments are all or almost all on the other side. Closers are responsible for what they conclude, which is also why, if we disagree with a close, we should always discuss it with the closer first! What the closer can decide, the closer can undecide! --Abd (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

My Comments at the Reading Room
Hi, for the avoidance of doubt I'd like to say to you personally I am not and was not irritated, cross, angry or anything else about the way you summarised my position in the non-vote currently going on. I just didn't want that line you quoted included in the summary as I felt it misrepresented my view. I did, incidentally, mean to undo the whole of your edit as it also looked like you were changing another editor's contribution to the project page and in general I think that shouldn't be done. In this current non-vote with so many people apparently so passionate, accusations of sockpuppets in the past, distrust of IP edits, and all the rest, I think it is particularly important to avoid being seen to change other people's comments even for the best of reasons. As for the particular issue currently in debate.... well I find it ludicrous and I'm more than happy to unblock and move on but I won't engage in a wheelwar so sadly the debate will need to continue for a while. Thanks QU TalkQu 12:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, QU, I didn't "change" anyone's "comments." What you objected to was not any change in your comments, but rather my analysis of your comment, which I was simply doing to make sense out of various comments, in terms of what they might imply about community consensus. There are really at least five categories of comment: Support, Abstain, Oppose, and "Abstain" with some expressed position, which could be in either direction. The goal of a poll, however it is started, is to develop and show the general sense of the community on a topic. That, by itself, binds nobody.


 * You had made a comment that appeared to place you in the "abstain but support unblock" category. You wished to emphasize neutrality. That's fine, and when you removed your comment, I then moved the categorization of your comment to a now-more-appropriate category, a pure abstention. (Which was possibly still an important category here, since Thekohser was asking for -- he can't demand, but surely he can ask -- at least ten community members participating, so your comment helped satisfy that condition.) I had only added the quotation from you originally to explain why I'd categorized you as I had.


 * The time for debate, as far as I've seen, is largely over. It is time to make a decision and move on. That's also a rough consensus, at least, at this point. As you are, from your comment, apparently neutral, you could decide to close this, at what you see as the best time. If your close is based on consensus as well as your own opinion, you will not be wheel-warring should you implement it. You would also not necessarily be wheel-warring if you simply unblocked, because there was a prior apparent consensus to unblock, that has not changed, and you have not previously asserted a decision in this matter. Mike.lifeguard was clearly wheel-warring, because he re-established a condition (total block) that he had himself previously created, undoing Adrignola's action (that was based on prior discussion and consensus at the time). Adrignola was not wheel-warring, but he would be, possibly, if he simply unblocked.


 * Disagreeing with and acting contrary to Mike.lifeguard is not "wheel-warring." If he'd been acting as steward, there is precedent for calling that wheel-warring, which, I'm sure, is why Adrignola asked about that. He wasn't acting as a steward (though he had a possible conflict of interest of a kind that he previously strongly decried at meta in the matter of Lar as a steward while also being an ombudsman reviewing checkuser actions, one of the steward privileges).


 * (I recommend against *ever* closing a discussion, making a decision, contrary to your own opinion, unless that is a weak opinion, this is an important safeguard, if you think about it; i.e., you may close contrary to "the majority," if you based this firmly on arguments, and you may close based on supermajority or even mere majority, sometimes, without deep consideration of the arguments, as "the sense of the community," but, to avoid unnecessary dispute later, you should then be prepared to actually examine arguments, especially new ones, presented later, or on reviewing the original arguments, to consider reversing your decision. There are aspects of traditional deliberative process that lead me to this conclusion, combined with the wiki adhocracy and a need for efficiency.) --Abd (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy to unblock once the conclusion is clear... by wheel warring I meant "not unblocking straight after Mike had blocked straight after someone else had unblocked". I agree technically it wouldn't be wheel warring but it felt like it was close enough to avoid if possible. QU TalkQu 19:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand. I'm merely outlining the envelope. Situations like this can be extraordinarily disruptive. --Abd (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Thenub314
this question or comment from Thenub314 was posted to my User page, I have moved it here. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Since your wikiversity thread suggested here was a more appropriate place to discuss your Wikipedia Review comments, I decided to take you up on it. But you still haven't answered the question: Why the abuse?  While we disagreed about various issues before, such as your wikiversity user request for custodial action, I still fail to see why it degenerated into name calling and insulting my intellect. Thenub314 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment is apparently based on comments of mine at Wikipedia Review, which I often compare to a bar where people interested in WikiMedia Foundation projects hang out and chew the fat, commiserate, complain, fight, agree, disagree, with few rules, except that being terminally boring at great frequency can sometimes lead to sanctions.


 * The most appropriate place to respond to or question activity on Wikipedia Review is there. To get an account there, a user will generally have to establish identity as a WMF user. True identity need not be revealed. (Thenub314 has declined to obtain and use a WR account.)


 * The second most appropriate way to complain about something I've written there is by email to me, which can be done through the wiki interface. This does not disclose identity; Thenub314 said that he did not want to use email because of concerns about exposing his identity. That, in itself, concerns me when it comes to a sysop, many of the problems of WMF wikis can be traced to allowing anonymous privilege. But I am not anonymous, my identity is openly disclosed. If Thenub314 writes me, I will respond. He will then know a direct email address for me. It will be his choice if he chooses to respond to that, thus disclosing his direct address to me.


 * The third most appropriate place is here, since the occasion for my WR comments was Thenub314's activity here.


 * However, what I wrote there I would not write here, so discussing what I wrote there would take place in a vacuum.


 * On Wikiversity, Thenub314 attempted to raise the issue he has just raised here. He repeatedly posted to my Talk page, in spite of my obvious refusal to discuss this there. He suggested I respond on Wikipedia Review, which I did. He then asked a further question, one that he repeats here. I responded, again, there.


 * It's a loaded question. Were my comments "abuse"? By what definition? They had a purpose and they can be justified, in context. Not here. Far, far worse is routinely allowed and tolerated there, and far worse is actually tolerated here. But not by me. If I wrote here what I wrote there, and if I was a sysop, I'd block myself as a warning. (Of course, I wouldn't. I'd delete it, strike, apologize, etc.) I blocked my mentor on Wikiversity, leading to a rapid (and out of process) desysop request by him at meta, a huge flap. The block was for incivility in his discussion of off-wiki conflict, he called a user a "liar." Without any local need to do so. Civility is essential to consensus process, while engaged in the process itself.


 * But human communities do far more than engage in formal or restricted process. They talk to each other, speaking frankly. Deep conflicts can be exposed and resolved through this, leading to better formal process. Or they can be inflamed. It depends, and there is no general rule that applies to all situations. It is clear to me that the open and almost completely uncensored discussion at Wikipedia Review leads to improvements in WMF wikis. One of the fastest ways to get a situation fixed where local sysops are unaware of a problem, and a user doesn't know how to get their attention without causing disruption, is to note the problem at Wikipedia Review.


 * Wikipedia Review is not a long-term solution, it is only useful in some circumstances. But it is a way that the overall WMF community can meet, and this meeting includes many blocked and banned users, from whom those of us who are not banned can learn much. If any reader here wants to start to understand the problems of the WMF, WR is a great place to start. But be prepared. It's like a bar, it's rowdy. Thenub314 has obviously been reading comments there, but hasn't dared to start an account. Why not? I'd say that there is somewhat of a problem with a sysop who won't at least occasionally respond, defending his positions; on Wikipedia, it is very clear that sysops are expected to be tolerant of criticism, even intemperate criticism. That is a general principle for any sysop on any wiki that pretends to be open and neutral. Certainly, a sysop who considers it a waste of time to read Wikipedia Review is not obligated to do so, but here we have a sysop who is actually reading it. Why?


 * I'll make up an example. This is not what I said.


 * Suppose I show up at a faculty meeting at my university. A member of the faculty stands up, and, before the group, asks me why I called him an "asshole" in the University Bar and Grill, last night. The chair of the meeting tells him to sit down, that this is out of order. He refuses to sit down and insists that I answer the question. The chair orders him to leave the room, and the sergeant-at-arms conducts him out. But then he returns later and demands an answer again. Should I answer? Remember, his question is out of order, and so would be my response.


 * If he shows up at my office, a place where students and other faculty members are present, and demands an answer, should I answer? Should I say the obvious and easy answer, "Because you've been acting like an asshole, don't like my saying that, stop acting like an asshole!"?


 * Maybe. And maybe not. What if I invite him to meet me at the UB&G? I'll buy him a beer and we can talk about it. [You can tell this story isn't about me, because I'm a Muslim and don't drink and wouldn't buy him a beer. But coffee, sure.]


 * He replies that he would never go into such a place. So I ask him, "What the hell are you doing listening at the door? Either come in and sit down and we can talk, or go away!"


 * I'm involved in negotiations with another "globally banned" user. He called me up the other day, I'd given him my phone number. We chatted for a while (this is a very interesting guy, with a great deal of very relevant experience), until we finally addressed a problem we'd been having. He started screaming at me about how pissed he was at me. He was obviously very, very angry. What did I do? What you you think? Do you think I'd hang up on him? Not yet, anyway! I listened to him!


 * At the Bar and Grill, he can speak with politeness, or he can say, "No, you are the asshole!" He's free and so am I. Here, we both have the obligations of civility and avoidance of disruption, and those are essential here.


 * I highly recommend that Thenub314, if he does not want to address alleged abuse in situ, or directly with me, privately, either talk off-wiki with friends to get some emotional support, or on-wiki on their talk pages if they and/or the community permits it, or stuff it, i.e., deal with his own feelings, himself, and not distract the community with them. I've discussed this here to cover the relevant process issue, the use of a wiki to address off-wiki behavior, which is seriously problematic. User talk pages, on-wiki, would be the most appropriate place, if it works. If it doesn't work, it's time to stop.


 * What is ironic is that the present dispute, the cause of my off-wiki comments, is ultimately about the alleged abuse of Wikiversity and other WMF wikis to pursue disputes based on what was on different wikis or off-wiki (such as on Wikipedia Review or blogs or outside wikis, etc., or on Wikipedia, but being "exposed" on Wikiversity). In other words, Thenub314 is violating the same principles that led to the block of Thekohser on Wikiversity. Thekohser was an ordinary user. I'm an ordinary user (at this time). Thenub314 is a sysop and would generally be expected to know better. Does he? Is he willing to learn? Questions. Answers are not obligatory. --Abd (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A conversation with Thenub314

 * Comment added later, copied here so that it's likely to be read first, next examination by Thenub. I should note that frank conversation with me can be dangerous for some people, I'd recommend continuing this only if you are willing to examine some of your deepest assumptions about society, about others, about the wikis, and about yourself. This is taking place on my Talk page, where your participation, where your very reading of this is completely voluntary. I'm pointing that out. You have no obligation to me to respond, nor any obligation to the wiki, only, maybe, if you agree, to yourself. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Original response. Original signature: Thenub314 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC). I am responding interspersed. Thenumb314, your original comments are in italics. My responses are indented in plaintext. This is being done to use a more conversational style. You may then respond to each comment, if you wish, with indenting as appropriate.--Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

''To start let me apologize for placing my comment on your user page, that was purely by accident.
 * Sometimes when we become emotionally involved, we make more mistakes.... there was also that little problem with the Colloquium on Wikiversity. Just noting it, you can do what you like with this information. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I might also not be because quite accustomed to the new interface, new time zone etc. You mention below that I assume (incorrectly?) that you were upset, you should also be aware that your assumptions about me are may be equally off. Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a general characteristic of written, on-line communication. However, was there an "off" assumption in the above? --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''Secondly let me say I didn't realize I had merited a second response on WR, I must have missed it, is it possible to post or email a link?
 * Too much work. There is a means to look for my contributions to Wikipedia Review, and there are search facilities. As you know, I didn't always use your name. But I bet you could find everything if you want. However, my real recommendation to you is that if you aren't willing to, so to speak, enter the pub and sit down and talk, you are better off not pouring over transcripts of discussions there. Out of context, they could seem very strange! --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not having an account I actually cannot search through your posts, I can only search by keyword. I of course had tried but didn't turn it up, which is why I asked for the link.  I am not willing at the moment to open an account on wikipedia review, given your reluctance to enter IRC I hope you understand. Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''As far as discussing this "in situ" goes, I also invited to email me directly the response. I would have replied and we would be discussing via email. I simply did not want to reveal which email address I have associated to my account to you. But I would happily reply from a different email address.
 * That certainly sounds better. I'll say, though, that this put me off, since you were suggesting I reveal to you my Wikipedia email address, but you didn't want to reveal yours, and still don't. You are impairing your own freedom and flexibility if you are using a sensitive email address for Wikipedia work. Again, up to you. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not so much a sensitive email as my permanent one. Given that you have taken to insulting me, I choose not to reveal to you institutions I am affiliated with.  Perhaps I am afraid it would give you further stones to throw in my direction, or perhaps I don't trust you to maliciously add it to spam lists.  Either way, you have pretty much destroyed the trust or respect that had existed previously. Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't "trust me" to "maliciously add it to spam lists." Can you find any incident of maliciousness in my history? I suppose there could be a first time! But I'd think you'd have to do a whole lot more to get me that exercised. In fact, it's probably impossible. I don't think you'd be capable of setting up conditions where I'd do that. So ... that leads me to a question that might be of some interest. Why are you paranoid? And why do you use a "sensitive email address" for your WikiMedia email? It hampers you. But if you really wanted to send me an email from some other address, you easily could. My email is quite well known, unfortunately, I can tell from the hundreds of spams I get every day. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''There is a small inaccuracy in your description of events, the question I asked now was asked in my first comment to you (ok technically it was the second comment). The second time I was pointing out you failed to touch upon it in your reply. I only brought it up here at your suggestion as a more appropriate place to discuss it.
 * More appropriate than Wikiversity, because the Wikipedia Review discussions were much more directly related to Wikibooks, at least. Still not completely appropriate. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

''I might suggest the wikibooks IRC room would be an excellent place to discuss it, if we need some further possibilities, but I have to many accounts and account passwords to remember as it is. I would like to avoid joining wikipedia review.
 * I am very reluctant to use IRC, for a number of reasons. If I'm going to go to a hot medium like that, I'd want to use voice. Skype, perhaps. The bandwidth is important, text is very inefficient for real communication. I need to set my Skype up again, it was set up on a notebook that crashed. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

''I fail to see why I should stuff it.
 * Your choice. It was an option, one which is, in fact, the norm for most sane users. People say all kinds of crap, especially if one gets involved in serious work on the projects, and if you let it get to you, you'll basically no longer be sane. However, there can be other positive reasons for addressing "insults." Perhaps you have one of them. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to get my mind around your specific choice of insult. As, to the best of my mind it doesn't fit any of our interactions.  I was worried I was perhaps doing something I didn't realize to frustrate you.  I understand from comments below (and elsewhere) you find the term "liar" much more insulting then calling someone an "idiot".  Unfortunately I think you and I have very different cultural norms.  Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll say. "Idiot!" colloquially, means "I think you are doing something really stupid, or your actions indicate that you are thinking in a blind, narrow way." That's what I understand when someone tell me I'm an "idiot," and, believe me, they do. I'm likely to laugh -- if I don't turn around immediately and say, "Yeah, that was pretty stupid!" So, Thenub, do words mean what the speaker intended, or do they mean how the listener received it, or do they have meaning determined by some other process?
 * If I knew in advance how you would respond to my language, I would then, I'd agree, be responsible for your reception of it. But in advance of that?
 * However, in the circles I've moved in, when someone displays extreme sensitivity to common speech, there is a tendency to push it, probably in an attempt to desensitize the person. It's what kids do with each other, you know. There is a reason for that "teasing" behavior, it's functional in some contexts. However, it breaks down as well, particularly with people who have been abused. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''I have been insulted in a public forum, it turns up when my user name is searched for, which is why it was called to my attention.
 * Interesting. "It was called to your attention." Someone wanted you to know, and, I'd suspect, that someone isn't truly your friend, they simply want to use you. I could guess, but I won't. Let me tell you, when someone, a friend, is called some nasty name (worse than this occasion! -- in person, it would be a kind of mild chiding) on Wikipedia Review, I don't email them to tell them! It could only cause them grief and trouble, unless there is some very specific reason they should know. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you did not respond to this, Thenub. Referred to here could be the most important lesson in all this, for you, if you care to examine it. I can understand that you would not want to reveal who told you. I'm going to guess anyway, you know. All I'd ask you to think about is whether or not this was a favor, something truly considering your welfare and the welfare of the wikis. You have already revealed, you know, where you got your impressions of Thekohser. In no way was this surprising. You're being manipulated, through an appeal to your own baser impulses, but, instead of being concerned about that, you are worried over a trivial "insult." I.e., something that also appeals to your own baser impulses. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''I haven't faulted your comments, I only ever very nicely sought the answer to two questions.
 * You were reasonably polite, but you also called it "abuse" and a "personal attack." Those are terms which mean one thing on Wikipedia Review, and another on Wikiversity, which is where you were using that language. Drawing me into a conversation there on this would be an invitation to actually discuss and perhaps defend the language, plus it was, as I mentioned, a "coatrack" for another to repeat claims about me and my habits. A setup. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The meaning of the words I use generally does not change depending on the forum, just perhaps the word choice.  I do consider being called "The stub" based of your judgment of the depth my intellect to be abuse.  The language directly refers to me publicly calls into question my faculties, so I think it is fair to call it a personal attack. Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that behavior is superior in some way? That you don't change your language depending on cultural context? And you assume this deficiency of others as well? And it is a deficiency. The primary function of language is communication, not idle expression, and communication always takes place in a cultural context; it could be said that language is culture and culture is language. Now, you brought this language here, taking it out of its original context. That's your choice. I wouldn't have written that here. Here, however, I would directly criticize, as needed, your actions, the ones leading me to a conclusion, expressed there, about, not "faculties," but whether or not the faculties are being used. It looks to me like they aren't. But that's a general comment, I would not ordinarily makes even such a general comment here, but you have effectively invited it. "The stub" is an obvious play on your user name; it implies something shortm incomplete. It does not imply intrisic shortness, not in our most common use around here, that of an immature page, a page that might be of value but which has not yet reached greater expression.
 * If, however, you believe that you are fully expressed, that you need no expansion of thinking or work to complete your analysis of relevant situations, then ... you might at least start to understand why I'd point this out! --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''What did you mean, and why where you upset enough to be reduced to name calling.
 * You assume that I was upset, correct? What causes you to infer that? And why do you call this "reduced"? Sometimes calling a spade a spade, for example, can be a step forward. Now, you aren't a "spade," but let's suppose for a moment that I called you an "idiot." I didn't, as far as I recall. (As with many bars, my memory can be a bit hazy!) That is a term that would not, generally, carry the literal meaning. It is colloquial shorthand for a complex judgment, about behavior, an implication that behavior has not been demonstrating coherent and cogent analysis, but the reverse, some kind of blindness or mental rigidity. In person, this is not a personal attack. On the other hand, an example you used of personal attack, "liar" is generally a personal attack, and even "lie," applied to what someone has said, is likewise a personal attack, because a "lie" is not merely an untrue statement, it represents a statement intended to deceive. And intention to deceive is almost always reprehensible, morally culpable, socially rejected behavior. A personal attack, casting or attempting to cast real opprobrium on the target. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, this maybe a point where we can make some progress. If you weren't upset, than what was the point? I say reduced because I see name calling beneath the usual level of respect I have witnessed from you on wiki.  As a academic note you should realize the deceit is not always seen as reprehensible, in many sub cultures the ability to do it well is something to strive for.  Being called a liar in such culture would cause no more fuss then a shrug of the shoulders.  Your personal views on what is insulting are interesting, but keep in mind they are exactly your views.  You shouldn't claim that when you insult someone else they should not take such offense, because it is the colloquial use of the term.  Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The "point" was intuitive. On Wikipedia Review, people discuss WMF activity, conditions, and personalities -- and plenty of irrelevancies --, often without a "point." Let's say that developing a sense of deeper community, especially among those who have found working with the wikis frustrating (often after many years of dedicated volunteer labor), is a "value." That value might eventually end up rescuing the wikis. Don't think they need rescue? Well, let's say that this would be a shallow view, probably based on limited experience. If you open your eyes, you might see more. No matter how smart you are, in theory, if your eyes are tightly shut, you are likely to act like .... an idiot. So to speak! --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''How can I aim to improve if I am never given an explanation of what my offensive actions were? I have not attempted to defend myself, I have not attempted resorted to any type of retaliation. I am just very insistently urging you to explain the source of your anger towards me. To me this doesn't seem unreasonable.
 * Then, first, stop making assumptions about my mental state! I'm going to acknowledge a lack of any apparent retaliation from you. That's good. I'm going to acknowledge what appears to be an attempt in good faith to understand the situation. That's also good, quite good. But I'm also going to warn you that it could take much time to communicate what is behind those comments on Wikipedia Review. You'll have to be patient, probably, if you really want to understand. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

''I understand your analogy to a bar room. In many ways it is a poor analogy. Let me give two (of many) quick reasons the presence of alcohol often excuses some antisocial behavior.
 * That's the bad news, sure, but it is also the good news. People may be more honest with each other in such a place. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

''Second the remarks are much more permanent, as I said someone interested in looking up information about because I am applying for a job could easily find your comments (especially since I generally take pride in my work here and on wikipedia and point it out to potential employers). Hence the damage they cause is a bit more serious then something said to your buddies at a bar.
 * Again, using the example of "idiot," do you seriously imagine that an employer reading those comments would deprecate your employment application? Imagine the personnel people conferencing: "Hey, look, here, someone who has no professional relationship with our applicant called him an 'idiot'! We can't even figure out what this is about, it's some kind of arcane Wikipedia politics, but, hey, if anyone ever called him an idiot, ever, we'd better not hire him, for if it turned out that he was actually an idiot, someone could say we hadn't done our job. His education, his job performance, his professional qualifications, all that pales before the significance of a comment from Boise from Idaho on Wikipedia Review."
 * Eh? You know what would be more damaging, should it be noticed, would be your actions in response. "Uh, oh! Looks like this guy is obsessed about what people say about him. Do we want someone here who is oversensitive like that?" Think about it. A word to the wise. But, my guess, it would make no difference at all. Any of it. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I trust that I have represented myself well with my comments. If not, then perhaps they should take that into consideration.  But I have been on hiring committees where even less was used to distinguish between two similar candidates, but despite my objections it still played a factor.  Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My analysis of this, assuming your report is accurate? The others wanted to reject that person, and were merely using some trivial piece of information as a cover. Believe me, the appearance of even "Idiot!" on Wikipedia Review is so trivial that the chance of being used by a "hiriing commmittee" is practically zero. It reveals nothing about you, only perhaps something about me. Am I an authority in your field? That could create some exception, I suppose. But I rather doubt that I am. But what does create, possibly, if someone ever reviews it, is the record of your own words, most notably here, but also in other places. So you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a fly. Swarms of flies. Let me tell you: if I were on a hiring committee, through some misfortune, and I looked at this discussion, I'd see some kind of negative about you. Based not on what I've written, but what you have written. I'd worry a bit about how you might function socially in an organization. However, my ultimate decision would be based on a balance of all the information I had, including the normal stuff. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''Finally to answer the questions: Do I know better? I feel my behavior thus far is well away form anything that would get me blocked, but time will tell if I do "know better".
 * You were pushing it a bit on Wikiversity with that reversion of the archive template and removal of SB_Johnny's comment. That you removed my warning was, of course, allowable. But a bad sign. Nevertheless, you stood down anyway, and apologized to SBJ. A good sign. Thenub, you seem to think I was angry. Could it be that you are angry? Anger leads us to screw up like that. It's okay to be angry! If you are angry, in fact, you are much better off simply saying it. You are even better off taking full responsibility for it. I suppose we will see. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was angry the first few hours after your initial explanation of what "the stub" meant, but that has long since worn off. In all honestly I suspect my screw ups were due to poor sleep.  But to be honest I just be careless by nature. Thenub] [[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could "careless by nature" be a bit of what I've been talking about? What if you are careless about arguments, about what impressions you form and what you advocate, as well as about details like avoiding removing the comments of others, or posting a comment on a user talk page, or, going way back, apologizing about a formatting error with a new comment in an AfD, i.e., making an already long discussion even longer without adding new relevant comment. I see this as quite connected with your recent behavior. I wouldn't mention it, here, if not for your effective invitation by asking on my Talk page. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''Am I willing to learn? I am not sure what it is that you would exactly have me learn.
 * Whatever comes up. Lots of stuff. You will have opportunities.--Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

''I suppose you would hope I would learn that there is a clear distinction between on wiki and off wiki behavior and the two worlds should never meet. I am fairly skeptical of this idea. To take a hypothetical situation: suppose an on wiki dispute turns to physical violence off wiki (or even simply threatening behavior) I feel the two worlds have certainly met.
 * A device for avoiding understanding what someone has said is to exaggerate it into something preposterous. I have never said that under no circumstances is off-wiki behavior irrelevant. Perhaps you should review and try to understand privacy policy. Even "outing" is allowed if there is sufficient necessity. What I've stated is the general case. The wikis are not to be used as dispute resolution fora for off-wiki disputes or conflicts. Only where the off-wiki conflict has serious implications as to on-wiki behavior, risking the project, or the safety of the community, does it become relevant. What you did, Thenub, was to take my alleged "abuse" to the Colloquium on Wikiversity, actually linking to it from there. That was offensive, in fact, absent some showing of necessity. As an example of necessity, suppose I were a sysop and, say, I blocked you. You might perhaps point to something like that to show bias. But I'm not a sysop, and I wouldn't block you if I were, unless the cause were blatantly obvious and clearly blocking would enjoy consensus.
 * You took up the time of Wikiversity participants in pursuit of what you later called a "purely academic interest," for your own "edification." That was selfish and inconsiderate, for starters. Had I consented to the use of my Talk page for that, it would have been okay. But I did not, and for strong reasons, having to do with Wikiversity politics. You can get a hint of this by reading the comments in that archived discussion! You were adding fuel to a fire. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had no intention of being offensive. From my cultural perspective, what you say in a public forum is public, free to be discussed anywhere. I had no idea you'd find linking to them offensive.  It seems I have different perspective about the situation, as I said clearly a couple of times the thread in the colloquium was not about our particular dispute, but more about was my use of your talk page appropriate.  Many of the comments there were in fact very interesting, and I am glad to have started the thread.  Next time, if I do something like this and it involves you, I will pay you the curtsey of censoring your identity for the description of the issue.  I am sorry I offended you. Thenub] [[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) sig added by Abd
 * I'm pointing to a lack of caution due to context. To pursue this, the reductio ad absurdem of what you just wrote: So, because my comment was in a public place, you could bring it up in, say, a town council meeting. Or in an ArbComm case on Wikipedia. Or in the middle of an RfD discussion on something not connected with it. Yes, it was public and thus can be mentioned if relevant. And, yes, you'd be correct, if you want to learn about the general principle, to not bring up the very personal reason for asking in a way that, in itself, can constitute a personal attack. As has been pointed out on Wikipedia, "personal attack" can be a personal attack. The irony here is that the underlying dispute, the occasion for all this, is over a critic who used specific incidents in an attempt to discuss general ethical principles, and who may have mixed personal grievance with a sincere concern over ethics. In other words, Thenub, it's being suggested that you learn to avoid what got someone else blocked and banned. Does this mean that you are in danger of being blocked and banned? Probably not, unless you were to become far more "careless." But the principles are the same. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''Given my feelings about this hypothetical the question becomes where does one draw the line, but it is never about simply not acknowledging off wiki behavior.
 * This is a simple line: will what I am adding to a wiki page improve the project? Will it improve collaboration here? Will it stir up unnecessary dispute? Is this the best place to raise an issue? If the answers are No, don't do it! You were originally free to ask your question on my Talk page. But when I declined to discuss it, that should have been it, as to there. I did give you alternatives, and, as you now realize, I did respond to you (and with more than you have yet read). And even more, now, though I would not expect this to fully satisfy you. --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the lenghty analysis and reply. When you asked for my patience I thought there would be more this conversation.  But it seems now as if you'd like it to end, you may consider the matter closed, regardless of whether or not I am fully satisfied. Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, when I wrote that you might not be fully satisfied, it is because to understand all of what I'm saying to you might take far more than a relatively brief conversation, even one as long as this. It might take time and experience. I often say things that people are not ready to hear, but, sometimes, they come to me years later and say, "You were right. I couldn't see it at the time." Sometimes. Some people never change. And, of course, sometimes I might be wrong. Or "right" but pursuing ineffective means. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

''My opinions on this are painted by my own experiences in which being careless with my name and email address caused some on wiki disputes to follow me into my real life. From that experience I was certainly willing to learn. After this comment I will let the matter drop. If you want to speak of it no more, simply do not reply. But I hope that you will instead choose to explain things to me a bit better.
 * I have a long record of involvement in some serious disputes on Wikipedia, including taking two cases successfully to ArbComm. (The second case resulted in some sanctions on me, but I never considered my personal ability to edit to be that important. Both cases raised issues of administrative abuse, and in both cases, ArbComm recognized the problem I was pointing to; but ArbComm has an unfortunate tendency to shoot the messenger; they noticed that there was, so to speak, a howling mob, and they assumed that I must have done something to deserve that, to stir them up, to cause this "disruption." "Greatest good for the greatest number," would be a rough statement of the principle they often operate on. To actually understand the situation would have taken more work than they were willing or able to put in (so it came back to haunt them, there is a current monster case that might have been avoided). My point was that I knew what I was doing, I set out to do it, and ArbComm agreed. Both times.) In any case, I have never willfully betrayed a confidence, and I have the confidence, generally, of a number of arbitrators and functionaries. I would not reveal your email address, nor am I interested in "outing" you. My interest, generally, is in establishing consensus process, and "consensus" includes everyone. Not just my "friends."
 * I have questions about the wisdom of anonymity for administrators, my view not being far from WMF policy, which requires non-anonymity for certain high functionaries, I'd extend that to lower levels. I would, instead, set up structure that would level some of the distinctions between administrators and ordinary users, making it possible for those who wish to retain full anonymity to do so, while still retaining efficiency. I'd set up a special class of administrators, who would be under (voluntary but retroactively enforced) restrictions as to tool use. A little like the Wikiversity probationary custodian. These would be like extensions of a "mentor administrator," allowing much more work to be done, but with a kind of supervision. And, in time, all this will be proposed, I assume. The goal is to make it easier to maintain the wiki, and easier to volunteer and serve, which is part of that. Further, it's essential that genuine consensus process be in place, it is impossible to fulfill the fundamental WMF policy of neutrality without that. And that's a huge story, all by itself.
 * The basic lesson for you, I'd say, from this present affair is, "Don't take yourself so seriously." (Which includes not taking what others say about you so seriously.) I've mentioned that you might have a good reason for raising the question you raised. Instead of "Why this abuse?", you might instead have more purely represented this as, "Why did you write that? What is this about?" Instead of assuming, from the get-go, that it was improper and wrong, "abuse." Does that seem reasonable? --Abd (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I take myself seriously with good reason. Which is why before I make any public, semi permanent comments about someone I choose my words carefully to try to reflect exactly what I mean.  As best as I understand form your bar room analogy, bars are a good place to call a spade a spade.  Or as mentioned in by way of a hypothetical example in another thread, sometimes you call someone an as****e because they are being an as****e.  So the best I can come up with is that you developed a nick name for me stating I had a limited intellect because that is your assessment of my intellect.  The benefit of writting "why this abuse" is that it let you know immediately how your remarks were received.


 * I might suggest to you to choose your words in the bar room a bit more carefully. Thenub314 (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "Carefully" according to what standard? It is impossible for me to "assess" your "intellect," all I can do is assess what appears to be reflected in what you write. Your intellect may far outstrip what you express in writing, especially if you are "careless." Isn't it ironic that you are suggesting that I become more careful in an environment designed to be relatively carefree, while I'm pointing out that your comments here don't show careful and intelligent consideration, in a place where such is far more necessary?


 * I should note that frank conversation with me can be dangerous for some people, I'd recommend continuing this only if you are willing to examine some of your deepest assumptions about society, about the wikis, about others, and about yourself. This is taking place on my Talk page, where your participation, where your very reading of this is completely voluntary. I'm pointing that out. You have no obligation to me to respond, nor any obligation to the wiki, only, maybe, if you agree, to yourself. --Abd (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this last (and first) comment lead me to think that perhaps I am not the only person who should be asking themselves the question "Am I taking myself too seriously?" For what it is worth, when I said I was careless I meant I do things like accidentally remove SB_johnny's comment, careless editing as it were.  I have a bit more faith in my arguments. I think I will let this conversation come to a clos. As a matter of personal advice to you, you seem to be chasing windmills to me, and best of luck with it.  Feel free to respond to this and have the last word as it seems you like to, but in the interests of letting the conversation finish I don't expect I'll reply.  Cheers Thenub314 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, not to have the last word, but just to respond to your hint about taking myself seriously. I do. 'Too seriously?" Probably sometimes. However, since you derive that from the notes, I'll mention that discussion with me has led to, apparently, two actual suicides and many "virtual suicides," where people had such strong reactions that they trashed months of work, or more. Was that about me or about them? Probably much more about them, but, you never can tell. Causation is a funny thing. Good luck. I see that Thekohser thing closed, with predictable result. Thenub, I serve consensus, I'm generally anticipating it, and I'm fairly good at it. Sometimes local consensus, a local phenomenon, can appear different than what the larger group will agree upon after fuller consideration. Sometimes the generality haven't yet become sufficiently aware of a situation. But I am not trying to impose my views on others. If you stick around long enough, you'll see, I suspect. --Abd (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Random query
Is your name meant to be the same as the usual abbreviation Abd (All but degree)?. Thenub314 (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It is the Arabic Abd, as in Abd ul-Rahman. Servant of the Merciful. (There is no Arabic name, "Abdul," that's a confusion. The ul- means "the." I have no college degrees, I dropped out of Caltech in my third year. I guess it was just too boring to not have Feynman for physics any more.... --Abd (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Straw man argument
I missed this reference, I was wondering if you could fill me in. What is a "straw man argument"? Thenub314 (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. By the way, this was in no way an accusation of bad faith, I assume you believed that what you argued against is what was being proposed, and I hope that in the future you will read more carefully. On the other hand, if I made some misstatement that led you to think I was arguing that our book on rosacea or the like should have a list of practitioners, then please point it out. I make mistakes. --Abd (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So that this won't be mysterious to others, the comment here was about this edit summary, and the edit was in this section as it stood at the time. Thenub, with this edit appeared to be responding to this edit of mine. Thenub was disagreeing with a position that nobody had taken, and was, in fact, agreeing with what I'd written, but placed as a response to it, as if it were a disagreement with it, hence my comment about "straw man." --Abd (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't think there was bad faith, I am just trying to alleviate some of my ignorance. I will do my best to read more carefully, but history shows I do make mistakes like this on occasion. Thenub314 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Asking is indeed a very good way to learn. Congratulations on the response, by the way, acknowledging your error. You'd be amazed how many people find that extremely difficult. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Congratulations might be over the top, but thanks anyways. Admitting my faults is one thing at mistakes is one thing I am good at, but I have been around enough to see how difficult it can be for some.  Luckily, wikibooks has a pretty good community in this way, most people seem to be willing to admit their own mistakes and be patient with others when they make mistakes. Thenub314 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, let's see if I can learn from your good example. --Abd (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)